eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'

Dan (K3DRQ) on November 6, 2007
View comments about this article!

I was recently thinking again about the repeal of the CW requirement and came to realize something important. Thanks to the efforts of the ARRL (not renewing my membership this year) and our government, ham radio is increasingly being marketed as a utility and public service and not a hobby.

While it's always a good thing to help out in an emergency, we are forgetting the fact that ham radio is primarily a hobby. Emergencies are best left to the police, fire, and ambulance crowd. Besides, that is one of the core reasons we pay our taxes.

We are now tying radio with the Internet via Winlink and the HSMM/Hinternet proposals. We also have Echolink, which has nothing to do with ham radio, but is rather a combination of a glorified instant messaging "boy's club" limited to ham operators.

We are forgetting the fact that ham radio is primarily a hobby. At least, that's why I got into the hobby ten years ago. The new Techs coming in are treating it as a utility and cellular phone system, not realizing the fun of propagation and working distant stations.
This is why bands such as 15 and 10 meters are pretty much dead. Pretty soon, we'll lose more frequencies to business interests and be down to one or two "citizen's bands."

If we are serious about continuing the hobby during the next century and beyond, we need to market it as the "fun" that it is. This includes the fun of working 10 meter SSB in low sunspot years during Sporadic E skip days, the "retro" and historic nature of CW, and the QRP movement. Otherwise, why not just use the Internet or a cell phone?

Repealing the CW requirement is a prime example of this trend. Whether it is "necessary" or not (it is still technically the second most efficient mode next to PSK31 and doesn't require a computer), it is still a highly important aspect of the hobby. 5 WPM isn't that difficult, and shouldn't scare people away from the hobby. -- At least from my perspective (I started out as a 5 WPM Tech Plus in 1997 and upgraded to a 13 WPM General two years later).

Let's remember that ham radio is primarily a hobby, and should stay that way if it is going to last in the future.

(Note: Before you accuse me of being too old and too nostalgic, know that I just turned 23 two months ago.)

73, Dan K3DRQ

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N7YA on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with you about ham radio being fun...but...

You just pressed every red button these threads need to completely self implode.

Im strapping in good for this one...prepare to engage!! Good luck and thanks a lot.

73...Adam, N7YA
(staying low)
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by OZ8AAZ on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
What constitutes "fun" for you may not be the same for anyone else - you like CW, good for you. I like PSK31 and all other digimodes, good for me :)
You actually make the whole case by stating that 5WPM isn't that hard (for YOU!) and therefore everybody should learn CW - well, I found PSK31 easy so why doesn't the rest of the world?!?!
I can speak German, it was easy to learn, so you are not as good as me because you can't speak German (or can you? Well, I can speak Danish and you can't - baahaa!)

Each man he's own priorities. Don't tell me you're a better ham just because you do CW!

73 es GL!
Kasper OZ8AAZ/5P9K/7S7K
exam. 12WPM!
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KB2DHG on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Dan I commend you on this article.
A hobby is what we do for fun and entertainment. AND YES Amateur Radio IS just that a HOBBY!
The fact that this hobby has the great advantage of aiding in emergencies is just a bonus.
The ARRL has changed over the years and unfrotunately I think, lost its edge on the basics. As far as CW goes, I am an avid CW operator and love the mode BUT it was not always that way. Being forced to learn it and having to work so hard at it, made me appreciate this HOBBY that much more. I truly know in my heart that if I never had to learn Morse Code I would have never done so and would be missing out on all the fun and excitement I am enjoying on the CW bands.
This hobby will surly die for several reasons. first and foremost is the expence of these new rigs. I think it is outragious the cost of these transceivers and all these bells and whitles are NOT necessary. I have been working the world with my old basic rigs.
The other thing is lowering the standards of our testing. Sorry but having all the answers for every possable question available all over the place is not a good idea. I remember when I had to study from books and realy understand what I was studing. It was hard don't get me wrong but I got a better edcuation and understanding. I am a VE and I make sure That I mentor these new comers to the HOBBY!
Well, I can go on and on but I appreciate your article here and hope that you continue to enjoy this wonderful HOBBY!
73 DE: KB2DHG
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KA4KOE on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
CW FOREVER! DEATH TO SSB!!! AM FOREVER!!!! DEATH TO NO CODERS!!!

There. That should get it going really well. No sense putting it off any longer.

BTW Nice article.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KB9CRY on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
This is why bands such as 15 and 10 meters are pretty much dead.

No they're dead because there is no steady propagation there.



we need to market it as the "fun" that it is.

It's a technical hobby not a fun hobby.



This includes the fun of working 10 meter SSB in low sunspot years during Sporadic E skip days,


That's no fun.


the "retro"


I use CW all the time and nothing retro about it; it gets through when other modes can't. Period.


and the QRP movement.


Life's too short for QRP. DXing QRO on 160 is fun!
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KB1IIX on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Really great article. You really hit on the nails with this one.

Thanks!

Bruce
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6KYS on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
KB2DHG wrote >>>>This hobby will surly die for several reasons. first and foremost is the expence of these new rigs. I think it is outragious the cost of these transceivers and all these bells and whitles are NOT necessary. I have been working the world with my old basic rigs.<<<<


Have you priced an Icom 718 lately? $500 (with DSP!)to essentially start you in a hobby that will allow you to communicate with the world. You don't need an old TS-520 or FT-101E to enjoy ham radio economically, or buy an IC-7800 just to be one of the boys. Where did this notion that this hobby is so prohibitively expensive to get started? Years ago, a new Collins, Kenwood, or even Heathkit was much more expensive in real dollars than the rigs we have today, and far less capable.

No this hobby won't "surely" die.....just another example of a doom and gloomer's writings.

Brad
N6KYS
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by AC5E on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Ham radio sick? No, there's plenty of life in the old hobby yet. My wife (AD5HG) and I checked tests at a VE session last night where more than 20 people earned Tech tickets. Several more upgraded to General or Extra. And a dozen or so tests didn't make passing grade. But they will be back next time!

No, there's not much homebrewing - because you cannot run down to the local surplus store and pick up gear to play with, and the local electronic parts stores have gone away.

But CW is still healthy. I get almost daily requests for my 60 hours plus at 13 WPM ASCII practice files. Play 'em on whatever program you have at whatever speed you can almost copy. Right now, there's more CW on the bands than there was a decade ago.

Money's tight, gear's expensive, but the new hams are making do with what they can get. If they get half a chance they will blend right in with the rest of us.

The real problem is pretty simple. There are social tides in ham radio as in everything else. Right now, there is a popular movement against "denying" anyone a license to do anything because they cannot or will not pass a test is unfashionable. "When the wind blows, the grass bends." We are outnumbered and underfunded, so the CW requirement went. Durnit!

But that should hardly be a problem since most of the new guys seem to want to learn everything and do everything. Including homebrew and CW. But a few in our community tend to blame the guys who are doing the best they can to hold on to our spectrum against commercial forces that are far beyond our control.

So the blamers bow up and quit supporting our common good. And worse, they will not help the new guys fit in. Someone has spent the time and effort to earn a ticket and nobody but other newbies will talk to them? That is not going to work.

Not pointing any fingers - but how much have you done for the state of our hobby today?

Pete Allen AC5E
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by DIPOLE on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I'm going to stay away from the CW thing. I did my 13 wpm back in the 70s, but was able to take advantage of no-code to get back into the hobby with less pain than before. So I can see it from both sides.

My agreement here is with the marketing thing. Back in the day, we didn't have cell phones, the internet, and global 24/7 news with remote trucks for instant, on scene coverage. In those days, hams could play an important role in local emergency situations. Sure, today one can always find that one instant where a ham was able to help in an emergency for a couple of hours in some peripheral and obscure way. But the truth is, civil emergency responders are much better equipped today than ever before, and getting better. Plus, their procedures and protocols have no connect point for plugging into the Amateur Service.

Promoting amateur radio as a civil service has become laughable from a technical perspective as well. For example, my parents live on the coast in the Florida panhandle and have been through many hurricanes over the past few years. With the redundancy in the cell phone system, I've always been able to call them within a couple of hours of the storm passing, even with major local damage. Try to convince even me that the current state of ham radio can top this! No way! Hmmm, maybe we can try smoke signals....

When phone patches once again become all the rage in ham radio, I'll possibly change my mind. Until then, I'll use a cell phone for my point-to-point communications, even in an emergency. Amateur radio, on the other hand, IS a hobby, IS freedom and means of speech, IS a check & balance to network news, IS global diplomacy, etc. This is where the ARRL marketing mavens, (LOL!!!) are missing the point.
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K7SU on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"This hobby will surly die for several reasons. first and foremost is the expence of these new rigs. I think it is outragious the cost of these transceivers and all these bells and whitles are NOT necessary. I have been working the world with my old basic rigs."

Sorry but this argument holds no water. I know people who's hobby is riding dirt bikes. Have you priced dirt bikes lately? You could buy several ham rigs for the price of one dirt bike. Same with snow machines...classic cars...you name it. Plus, many fantastic deals are available on good rigs via many of the classified web sites.

I also agree that ham radio is a hobby. Going to ham meetings anymore is usually nothing more than seeing the latest ten year old ARRL video on emergency communications. I'm not beating up on the ARRL...I'm a member. I'm not beating up on emergency communications. That's what justifies our ham bands and our service. But I DO believe that it should be marketed as a HOBBY and that has indeed not been the case over the past few years.

I don't care whether you operate SSB, PSK (digimodes), CW, AM, or whatever. Whatever aspect of ham radio you enjoy is the one you should pursue. The fact that ham radio can be used in an emergency is indeed a bonus as said earlier.

I got into ham radio when I was 14 years old because I was fascinated by the aspect of talking to someone in another part of the world with no "strings" attached. That STILL fascinates me to this day. It led me to a career in radio broadcasting.

Ham radio is FUN...ham radio is a HOBBY. Let's treat it that way.

Good article which invokes much thought!

73 and see you on the air....

Kelly
www.K7SU.com

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KF4HR on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Dan how in the world can you tell me that ham radio is just a hobby! Jeeze, I live and dedicate my entire life and most of my salary to using ham radio for public service to my county and country!

Just kidding. I agree with you 100% Amateur radio should be considered a hobby, and EC should be considered a nice side benefit. I've seen potential hams be turned off from amateur radio by the over-zealous EC types. Not good. There's certainly nothing wrong with EC work, and most everyone I know would volunteer in a pinch, but I think promoting amateur radio as a hobby, not an EC obligation, is key to keeping new people filling the ranks.

KF4HR
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W8JI on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

There are many reasons Ham radio is declining, but then so are many other technical groups, fraternities, and interests that require time or effort.

It has NOTHING to do with CW. We never had the big influx of active people no matter how we lowered requirements for the past 45 years.

We used to have to draw and read schematics and solve problems; they eliminated that around the 60's. No change because of it.

We used to have to copy one minute solid out of five at 5, 13, or 21 WPM without error and send the same. They reduced that with no change.

People need to get a clue. It is ANYTHING about the amount of work or what we like to do or how we treat people INSIDE the hobby. It isn't about how we market ourselves.

It is all about social and technical changes we can't control INSIDE our fraternity. It is about the change in the world in people and technology.

People used to use Ham radio for communications. It was cheaper than telephones and portable. That has changed now. We can talk anywhere for next to nothing.

People used to build things. Kids built mopeds and go karts; they worked on engines and built forts in the woods. That's changed now. The primary time occupation is video games and similar.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with Ham radio that we can "fix" to make it thrilling or special to a modern society that doesn't care how anything works and can communicate and entertain themselves through less effort.

There will always be a small percentage of people fascinated by esoteric things like radio or building things, but it is a smaller and smaller cross section because of social changes. Most people want everything without work or effort including raising kids or learning anything they don't have to learn.

We can't fix or change society inside our little group.





 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WW3QB on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
KB2DHG wrote >>>>This hobby will surly die for several reasons. first and foremost is the expence of these new rigs. I think it is outragious the cost of these transceivers and all these bells and whitles are NOT necessary. I have been working the world with my old basic rigs.<<<<

When I got my first job in 1978, I purchased a Drake C-Line for over $1,200. According to the inflation calculator, that would be $3,855 in today's dollars. And there was no DSP!

See http://www.hello-radio.org/ the web site marketing ham radio by the ARRL. No emergency communications push there. Just old fashioned HF comunications.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6NKN on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Dan,

You only needed to be here in Southern California during the fires in the past few weeks to know that ham radio is a whole lot more then just a hobby.

Ham radio is what you make of it. If you stay in the hobby / service long enough you may learn that.

Rick N6NKN
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N9KG on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
W8JI:
Painfully insightful. I'm afraid you've got it nailed.
I have no idea what the answer is. We are rapidly losing the ability to even manufacture anything in this country.
Good luck.
N9KG

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with the comments about CW and also your comments on the Echolink,or D-star as both to me is just internet radio. Its not as much fun as working a person directly. The Public services is good for us in some ways as it promotes us as a public service group for emergency's but like you mentioned it seems to be more important than what the hobby started out as. Seems like every week when I was home in the states there always something being promoted towards emergencies, and very nlittle on just dxing or rag chews.
Most of either enjoy good rag chews or chasing dx and I am one of those's when I am home next to my station. I can't always operate as I travel in countries where the requirements are not like there in the States. Like Singapore<need to be a citizen>. I enjoyed passing the exams to obtain the license as it proved to me and the FCC that I could do it.
Great article though and enjoyed the readings...
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K8AG on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Hi,

"We are forgetting the fact that ham radio is primarily a hobby."

When did this change? Did I miss a memo? Amateur Radio has always been first and foremost a service by definition.

I'm not a big fan of the police wannabes, but our license includes us in a service not just a hobby.

Of course it is a pastime in which we all choose to participate in some way.

But we are a service first.

(Unless I missed the memo.)

73, JP, K8AG

 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K9RFZ on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Hobby - An activity or interest pursued outside one's regular occupation and engaged in primarily for pleasure.

There are many ways to define pleasure and one person's way of finding pleasure may not fit another's way. Nearly every previous poster views amateur radio as a hobby, but somehow they downplay the obligation that comes with the privilege of having an amateur radio license. For a reminder, review CFR Title 47, Chapter 1, Part 97.1 Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service. I don't see the words 'hobby' or 'pleasure' listed in any of the 5 purposes for the amateur radio SERVICE. I'm not trying to be a killjoy, because I believe an amateur radio operator should have fun in fulfilling the stated purposes of the amateur radio service. My point is we shouldn't forget the amateur radio frequencies were allocated for specific reasons and one of those reasons isn't solely for the pleasure and enjoyment of technical geeks to have a hobby.

Joseph, K9RFZ
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
W8JI IS RIGHT. The old FCC NOVICE ticket was 2 year CW ONLY. Non renewable.

You had to Learn, Earn, and Grow to get your General.
Today we have VE ham-in-a day tickets, and "Minute Rice Extra's!
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WW3QB on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Amateur radio is a service just like everything the FCC regulates is a service (including CB and FRS). This is from http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=personal_radio

The personal radio services are:
218-219 MHz Service - One or two way communications for transmission of information to subscribers within a specific service area.
Citizens Band (CB) Radio Service - 1-5 mile range two-way voice communication for use in personal and business activities.
Family Radio Service (FRS) - 1 mile range Citizen Band service for family use in their neighborhood or during group outings
General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) - 5-25 mile range Citizen Band service for family use in their neighborhood or during group outings
Low Power Radio Service (LPRS) - private, one-way communications providing auditory assistance for persons with disability, language translation, and in educational settings, health care, law, and AMTS coast stations.
Medical Implant Communications Service (MICS) - for transmitting data in support of diagnostic or therapeutic functions associated with implanted medical devices.
Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS) - private, two-way, short-distance voice or datacommunications service for personal or business activities of the general public.
Personal Locator Beacons (PLB) - used by hikers, and people in remote locations to alert search and rescue personnel of a distress situation.
Radio Control Radio Service (R/C) - one-way non-voice radio service for on/off operation of devices at places distant from the operator.
Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS) - for remote monitoring of patients' health through radio technology and transporting the data via a radio link to a remote location, such as a nurses' station.
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WR8Y on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
""""""""""""ham radio is increasingly being marketed as a utility and public service and not a hobby.

While it's always a good thing to help out in an emergency, we are forgetting the fact that ham radio is primarily a hobby. """""""""""""

You sure hit the nail on the head there!
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WR8Y on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
""""W8JI IS RIGHT""""""

Yea, I missed that post.

He IS right; and it should be obvious, people have changed over the past 33 years since I was licensed as a Novice at age 14.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WW3QB on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Part 97 now emphasises emergency communications. See paragraph (a).

§97.1 Basis and purpose.
The rules and regulations in this Part are designed to provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following principles:

(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.

(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.

(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art.

(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.

(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance international goodwill.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K5MO on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"This is why bands such as 10 and 15 meters are pretty much dead"


Is that so?

Checked the sunspot count recently?


John K5MO
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KI4VVI on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
We have had hams that took the Tech test on Saturday am, took the General test on Saturday pm and took the Extra test on Sunday am and passed all three.
That's great, but ask them something simple about ham radio and they could not tell you.
Want to know why? Neither one read a book. They downloaded the question pool off of the internet and studied those questions only. Gordo West makes a living from this approach.

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
K3DRQ writes:

"I was recently thinking again about the repeal of the CW requirement and came to realize something important. Thanks to the efforts of the ARRL (not renewing my membership this year) and our government, ham radio is increasingly being marketed as a utility and public service and not a hobby."

I disagree. The public service aspect has always been a part of the marketing of amateur radio. It's part of the justification for our very existence.

Why aren't you renewing your ARRL membership? They did not push for the removal of the Morse Code test.

K3DRQ: "While it's always a good thing to help out in an emergency, we are forgetting the fact that ham radio is primarily a hobby."

I don't think anyone forgets that at all. But nowhere in Part 97 is the word "hobby" used.

K3DRQ: "Emergencies are best left to the police, fire, and ambulance crowd."

I agree - *if* they can do the job. Which they can do most of the time. But sometimes even the best emergency response folks are overwhelmed by an emergency. That's when hams can help out.

K3DRQ: "Besides, that is one of the core reasons we pay our taxes."

YES! But look at what happened after Katrina.

K3DRQ: "We are now tying radio with the Internet via Winlink and the HSMM/Hinternet proposals. We also have Echolink, which has nothing to do with ham radio, but is rather a combination of a glorified instant messaging "boy's club" limited to ham operators."

If you don't like those things, don't use them. But they are a part of ham radio.

I remember years ago when the first ham repeaters went on the air. Some hams said "that's not ham radio". Some repeaters used remote receivers and remote control by means of leased phone lines - some folks said "that's not ham radio". Etc.

Where do you draw the line?

K3DRQ: "We are forgetting the fact that ham radio is primarily a hobby. At least, that's why I got into the hobby ten years ago."

If hobby-type activity is your focus, that's fine. But amateur radio includes things like public service too. For example, the New York City Marathon has used amateur radio as a key part of their communications since at least 1971. Cell phones can't do the whole job. There are lots of other examples, like when the space shuttle burned up on reentry and there was a states-wide search for pieces that made it to earth. Ham radio helped out.

K3DRQ: "The new Techs coming in are treating it as a utility and cellular phone system, not realizing the fun of propagation and working distant stations."

That's been going on since at least the late 1970s. Couples and whole families would get ham tickets so they could use the local repeaters for personal communications. We called them "honeydew hams" because you rarely if ever heard them on the air for anything other than working on the the honey-do list. Some of them went on to other parts of amateur radio, some didn't, but they were and are hams and what they do is part of amateur radio.

The ubiquity of cheap cell phones has pretty much eliminated them as a source of new amateurs, though

K3DRQ: "This is why bands such as 15 and 10 meters are pretty much dead."

No, it's not.

Those bands are quiet these days primarily because we're at the bottom of the 11 year sunspot cycle. When those bands do open up, it's in the middle of the day, when most hams are at work or school. In a few years the situation will be very different.

K3DRQ: "Pretty soon, we'll lose more frequencies to business interests and be down to one or two "citizen's bands.""

If we do lose any frequencies, they will be VHF/UHF, because that's what the other services want. Not HF.

The only frequencies we have lost in the past 40+ years are 220-222 MHz. We gained new bands at 30, 17 and 12 meters in that same time frame, got back all of 160 and got some new freqs. at 60 meters. Now the Region 1 and Region 3 SWBC folks are moving off of the top end of 40 meters, after being there since the 1930s.

K3DRQ: "If we are serious about continuing the hobby during the next century and beyond, we need to market it as the "fun" that it is. This includes the fun of working 10 meter SSB in low sunspot years during Sporadic E skip days, the "retro" and historic nature of CW, and the QRP movement."

And a lot more - the technical side, for example. Satellites, contesting, and much more. Including public service.

K3DRQ: "Otherwise, why not just use the Internet or a cell phone?"

Because they're not the same thing. It's like asking why would anyone paint or draw after the invention of photography, or why anyone would have a sailboat or a rowboat after the invention of powerboats.

The defining part of amateur radio is that it is "radio for its own sake". As an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. If all you are interested in is the end result, the internet and cell phone will do, but if the method - the journey, if you will - matters, then ham radio has something to offer.

*THAT* is what "sells" ham radio - that it's about radio for its own sake. Some folks will get it, most won't. The trick is to find the ones who will get it.

K3DRQ: "Repealing the CW requirement is a prime example of this trend. Whether it is "necessary" or not (it is still technically the second most efficient mode next to PSK31 and doesn't require a computer), it is still a highly important aspect of the hobby."

I agree 100%!! But the FCC doesn't. They have been on a mission to reduce and eliminate the code test since the mid 1970s. FCC, not ARRL.

K3DRQ: "5 WPM isn't that difficult, and shouldn't scare people away from the hobby. -- At least from my perspective (I started out as a 5 WPM Tech Plus in 1997 and upgraded to a 13 WPM General two years later)."

I agree 100%, but see below.

K3DRQ: "Let's remember that ham radio is primarily a hobby, and should stay that way if it is going to last in the future."

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE MODE = ON

But if you say amateur radio is "just a hobby", then why should there be any license tests at all? Most hobbies don't require licenses, let alone learning new things like Morse Code. Why should "fun" require the work of learning?

If you try to sell amateur radio as nothing other than a "fun hobby", how do you justify anything other than the barest minimum of licensing and testing?

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE MODE = OFF

Also, if you take the 'just a hobby' route, we hams will be in a weaker position when it comes to many issues. For example, why should anti-antenna restrictions be changed just to allow us to enjoy a hobby? Why should interference-generators like BPL and noisy power lines be shut down or cleaned up just so we can enjoy a hobby? Why should we have exclusive bands all to ourselves, just for a hobby?

The mere fact that a person isn't paid for something they do doesn't mean what they do is 'just a hobby'.
It simply means they aren't paid.

It's important to realize that the promotion of the public service aspect doesn't mean *you* or anyone else is required or expected to be involved in that aspect of amateur radio.

K3DRQ: "(Note: Before you accuse me of being too old and too nostalgic, know that I just turned 23 two months ago.)"

You got started in ham radio at about the same age as me - 13. Now I'm 53, and I can tell you that a lot of the things you're observing are not new and are nothing to worry about.

When I became a ham in 1967, there were only about 250,000 US hams. Today there are more than 655,000. As a percentage of the population, we were much lower in 1967 than today. Ham radio was a niche thing back then, same as today. It will always be a niche thing, because most people don't/can't understand the idea of "radio for its own sake."

I've seen all sorts of gloom-and-doom scenarios over the past four decades, and none of them have come to pass. Instead, there are simply more fun things to do, and more bands, modes and technologies to do them on.

73 de Jim, N2EY



 
Counter Progress  
by AI2IA on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Articles like this help to make eHam.net the kook venting site that it is. THE MORSE CODE TESTING ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED. I wrote "testing" issue. How long is it going to take reactionary hams to accept this fact? You really want to do Code? Quit crying and do it. There is no FCC rule against it.
The rest of this article supports the large gloom and doom faction, the "good old days" faction, the "I've been a ham umpty ump years snob faction, and the long parade of negative hams, if you want to call those attitudes promoting a hobby. It's more like promoting mental illness.
I have tried for a long time, but you can't get through to these knuckle heads. If you want to really ENJOY this hobby, then stay away from this negative crowd of dumbells.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N0BOF on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
As a Police Officer who is on the radio all day responding to different calls, I love to go home and get on my ham radio to RELAX and UNWIND. I also have started a ham club for our local school district. Many of you here on this forum have helped me in so many ways that I'll never be able to thank you enough. I figure if I can get even 1 kid away from living in front of the TV or the video games, it's a win/win...we explore all of the modes including CW. Teach a kid to fish and...well you know the rest.
This is the best hobby I've ever been a part of, and I have a lot of hobbies. And hey, if any of these kids get licensed and want to become part of ARES, MARS, or whatever...more power to them.
Thanks again to all the hams who have helped me.
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W8VZM on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Service or Hobby, it really doesn't make a difference. The underlying problem in ham radio, as well as many other fields of endeavor is the instant society that we live in. Instant food, instant money(credit),instant friends(chat), instant education(pass 'em all), in short instant gratification!

I am by no means old (45) but I do remember and still enjoy the fruits of my labor. A home cooked meal beats fast food Every Time! I am satisfied with my 13 wpm Advanced license, but I am working diligently to get my Extra. I am returning to operate cw because any idiot can do the other modes by buying the right gear and hooking it up. (BTW they are not all idiots) And yes you can buy cw with a computer. But I am doing it the old fashioned way, because I want to and I am enjoying learning and using something new to me. I enjoy building my own antennas, test equipment, gear, desks, anything that I can. No, it's not perfect nor the latest and greatest but it is my work and it is mine! My old HW-101 works because I worked on it. It is my primary right now because i want it to be and because I can fix it. I will be buying a new state of the art rig the first of the year becuse I want to. The HW-101 will still be on the desk and will stay operational. Just like the kit Wilderness Sierra that sits beside it now.

My point is that most folks today either don't know or have forgotten the satisfaction of working for something instead of using "plug and play!" Unfortunately I don't see any change in that coming. So I guess I will keep on working and enjoying it for myself. Every once in a while I run across someone who feels the same but very rarely.

If you are a plug and play op, welcome! I will qso you like anybody else. But please think about what else you could do to increase your enjoyment. Last time I checked enjoyment was the key reasons for hobbies!

Ron W8VZM
Ex KA8DRS, KJ4EY
First licensed in 1978
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by SSB on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Hams can't stop analyzing ham radio. Hams can't just do what interests them and enjoy it. Why? Hams in hamdom are pretty much like hams on eHam.

Attack, name call, arrogance, preaching, put down, attack, name call, arrogance, preaching, put down,
attack, name call, arrogance, preaching, put down,
attack, name call, arrogance, preaching, put down,
attack, name call, arrogance, preaching, put down,
attack, name call, arrogance, preaching, put down,

and on and on and on........................

Alex...
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W7AIT on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts."


Part 97 is working just fine thank you. Ham radio is and continues to provide a pool of electronics experts.

The sky is NOT falling.

Ham radio has TRIPLED from 203,000 US hams in 1964 to 650,000 now. The SKY IS NOT FALLING.

Yes, its just a hobby.

Its a hobby.

Repeat after me, Ham radio is a hobby.

The sky is not falling. Have FUN......
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WW3QB on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I've posted that it's a service and a hobby, because it's both. It's whatever you make it, and you may make it different things on different days. I expect fewer hams to be licensed in the future, but I don't think that is a problem. 250,000 hams, like in the 1970's, would be fine. There is less demand for HF frequencies, but VHF/UHF frequencies are in demand from other services. It turns out to be a good thing that we share most of our UHF bands with military RADAR. But if the governent does not need them anymore, we may lose those bands (420, 902, 1240, 3300 MHz).
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by NT4XT on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I tried to hang on to priviledges being harder not easier, and what's done is done. Yes, it's too bad because we're losing our manufacturing base simply because of emphasis on I Want It All, Now motivation.

Short term profits with no vision for the long range. Even in decent schools, we're teaching our children how to take tests very well, but falling short on relevancy. So we're producing generations of people who know stuff but not why the stuff matters. In my considered opionion, knowing answers to specific questions needs to be balanced with relevance.

There should be, should have been, a stronger sense of balance. I think this applies to ham radio as well.

It is a hobby, and RF will never go away, if anything RF continues to proliferate at an enormous exponential rate- and obviously computer technology has it's place.

I remember using an old fashioned paper/pencil/eraser dupe sheet during Field Day in the mid-late 70s. Commodors, Trash 80s where just hitting the market, cassette tape drives, and killer abomidable RFI, too. I remember being able to know we were nearly half a mile from home because I could hear his TRS-80 on my uncle's FT-7B.

Look at the multi multi contest station now. Dead in the water without computers/LAN.

In an emergency comm application/net work, same thing, but with various digital modes everything can be documented on hard drive, all transactions, time of transmission/receipt of transmission, date, message, origins, destinations, etc- in one word- traffic.

I think there is adequate emphasis on both hobby and service aspects to Amateur Radio. Too bad we have to call it Amateur radio, seems like some installations are anything but what that word implies. The only thing "amateur" about our hobby it used to be, was the non pecuniary nature of it.

On the Up-side, it can still for the most part be this way, if we are willing to help each other to be professional, at least with regard to operating practices. I have observed hams helping each other, correcting each other in friendly ways non criticizing ways. Instances of the exceptions to this remain low, even today.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W7IBI on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I'd offer a longwinded reply, but it would take me away from my hobby.
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KI4WAF on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Yes, it IS a hobby. Hobbies are supposed to be fun. If someone doesn't find learning code fun, why should we make them do it? If they don't like it, they're not going to continue doing it after they take their test.

Personally, I DO find code fun, which is why I learned it even though I was licensed after the code requirement was dropped. I encourage others to do the same, but am not going to beat them over the head if they don't or call them a CBer.

Why do so many people not understand the concept of "to each his own"?
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WM2P on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
First we must recognize that any hobby is defined by the majority of the hobbyist whether we agree with the direction they take the hobby or not.

Secondly, if something is valuable to enough people, whether it be CW or even amateur radio as a whole, it will survive. If not, it will die along with everything else not considered useful to society. No amount of moaning, bitching and longing for the good old days will change this. The ARRL's, "when all else fails", smacks as a desperate attempt to provide a reason for the existance of ham radio in a world that will eventually thirst for more and more bandwidth to support their wireless devices. Most of the world has not been in a situation "where all else" has failed. With satellites and many other means of communications available today, ham radio as an emergency service is more like an extra set of hands than an essential service. It is a poor argument to use to maintain the expanse of bandwidth we currently enjoy. At best it is an argument to keep some frequences available to only those hams trained and affiliated with an accredited emergency organziation.

I am often baffled when I hear hams talk about emergency services as a vital component of what they do, especially since most of them saying this are not members of any emergency group. I suspect that many hams are not aware that most agencies and all national organizations require that you be trained in their emergency management program and have a background check. I think some hams believe that in an emergency they will be some how mobilized by the relief agencies. No way, no how unless you are prequalified. In fact, we will be asked to stay off of the airwaves to make room for the trained professionals.

One last comment. Learning CW is an accomplishment to be proud of but it is not more important than accomplishments hams have in other areas. In some cases, their accomplishments were much more difficult to achieve or result in a substantial betterment of their lives. It is good to be proud of learning CW but do not lord it over others. I know hams that have accomplished things that most of us could never do. Accomplishments that result in making the world a better place or prolonging life, etc.. To hear someone talking about CW as if all those without that ancient skill are beneath contempt is often an indication of misplaced emphasis on what is truly important in life. I do belive that some people define their lives by their accomplishments in their hobbies and there are a lot of pyschological factors involved in that behavior that would be good fodder for another article. :)
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KA8YLY on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with a lot of what you said here. I have fun with this hobby and pretty much use CW exclusively.

A lot of people get into this hobby because they are wannabee policemen, I've seen this first hand. this 'movement' has been tagged whackers for whatever reason. I too believe that emergencies are best left to the experts. sure we can help out when the stuff really hits the fan though.

I think we as a group tend to take ourselves a little too seriously as well.

when I was a little kid, I was attracted to this 'radio stuff' because it seemed really cool to talk to people all over the place and make friends over the airwaves. I wasn't (and still am not) interested in public service, 2 meter fm and echolink.

I'm not saying that I won't help out with some awful situation if I'm needed...

my 2 cents.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W4FFM on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
You're absolutely wrong about hobbying being the only purpose of amateur radio. See again: "§97.1 Basis and purpose." Don't forget that our privileges and our protection from predation is based upon our usefulness in an emergency. If amateur operators all decide that hobbying is all they'll do and forsake emergency communication (or, worse yet, condemn EmComm) then our "hobby" WILL die, as we'll have no response when the government decides that big industry needs the bands more than we do. Thankfully, as evidenced by the ability of the service to mount a defense against the occasional attempted incursion into our bands and the good health of the ARRL, the vast majority of Hams don't feel that way.

The assertion that amateur radio is no help in emergencies is not supported by the facts. This is a disturbing trend I've been seeing in the forums, the condemnation of emergency communications in amateur radio. EmComm is not (never was, and was never intended to be) a primary form of communication during an emergency, but rather a very inexpensive form of very reliable back-up communication. Watching folks run around setting up field stations may gall you, but it takes a lot of preparation for a possibility that might never come. If the preparation is not there then if a disaster does strike then that back-up communication won't be as effective as it could be otherwise. If seeing folks don traffic vests and putting signs on their cars bothers you, remember that these vests protect them in traffic, and the signs help them get where they have to go. Sorry, no one is allowed flashing blue or red lights unless they're directed to do so by a governmental authority (and they WILL be arrested if they do).

Yes, a small percentage of the EmComm folks are over the top, but that is a VERY small percentage (and a very small percentage of every group is 'over the top'... look at the hams who claim that not only is EmComm useless, but it is "dangerous", whooo boy!). If you check out YouTube you'll find wannabe's who put light on their cars, engage in chases and have nothing at all to do with Ham radio.

So, hobby away, but don't denigrate the folks who do engage in what our hobby is legislated to be, a potential back-up communication source during disasters.

It's all good: As a hobby, as a reaction to 911 and a desire to 'do something', for EmComm (which can be fun too.... figuring out easily transportable field antennas is a hobby unto itself), DXing, contesting, or just ragchewing on a 2-meter repeater. These are not mutually exclusive activities, and none is better than any other, so don't put down any one of these activities in an attempt to assert that the particular one that you "joined the hobby for" is the best. Hobbyists are not going to be turned off by the potential to help out in emergencies... and folks who join as what they perceive of as their civic duty will be turned on by the hobby aspects (it's just plain fun to be a Ham radio operator).

73 de Carl W4FFM /AE
EC, Richland Co. SC

And yes, I do carry a badge, but I carried it for many years before I got my ticket, and it says "Highway Patrol" on it, and you will be arrested if you carry illegal lights on your vehicle. And I thank God for citizens who back up our troopers and for the selfless amateur operators who come out in all sorts of weather to lend a hand when and IF they're needed.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KI6EAA on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Dan,

Will all due respect... You ended with a proper conclusion, ham radio is a hobby, but you started with the standard old fart complaints regarding no code CBers, lazy appliance operators, internet infrastructure use not ham radio, etc. Sounds like some old timers have been beating on you at club meetings!

Why is another person's preferences SO threatening to others? Who really cares if new hams do not want to use CW. I certainly never will...but, have fun if you wish to pound brass all night. Why is it a threat if new hams just like to ragchew on 2m repeaters? At least the spectrum is getting used. Maybe these hams DON'T WANT to chase DX. I is not like the 2m bands are crowded, at least around here. If we limit Ham licenses to those who can get post cards from Timbuktu, program DSPs or draw Smith charts on cocktail napkins, then the hobby will die, fast... and, the spectrum will be given to those who WILL use it.

Randy

 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KW4N on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Creative self destruction" is a central dynamic of capitalism and an idea by Harvard economist Joseph Schumpeter in 1942. It means that a market economy/technology will continually revitalize itself from within by scrapping old and failing technologies, then reallocating resources to newer more productive ones.

For example, in 1930's the telegraph was at it's peak, started in 1850's and '60's. It transformed the American economy. By 1930's half million telegrams were sent each day. The Western Union messenger was as familiar a site as the Fed Ex man. Despite this enormous success the telegraph industry was on the verge of disappearing. Teletypwriters replaced the old single key transmission equipment and Western Union operators were essentially typists who relayed your message in English, not Morse. Now telephones were the new growth business and by late 50's the telegraph played no major role in communications.

This pattern of progress and obsolescence is everywhere. One big innovation and taken for granted is the pop-top. The impact was huge, particularly in the beer industry. Investors flocked to buy into the aluminum industry. The steel industry went by the way of the telegraph key and we ended up with a 'rust belt.'
Morse code replaced the Pony Express, that replaced the runner, that replaced smoke signals.
Now the winds of creative destruction have hit ham radio and CW for reasons listed in previous posts.

73's
Dave, KW4N
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W3JK on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I really admire and acknowledge anyone that can do 15 or 21 WPM. Having said that, we should not be myopic in our view that CW is the end qualifier or be judged because you know CW or not. I got into this hobby in 1983 and learned CW as well building little kits etc. (learned the hobby from old timers the hard way).
So, time has progressed and so has the world. You are talking about kids in todays world, that use cellphones for IM and other purposes. How do you want to defend your hobby and your spectrum without infusing fresh blood? How do you change with time and make your tent a big tent? What do you think would have happened if the CW guys told the AMSAT guys to go and shove it because its too high tech.
At the end of the day, the hobby needs to include everything and if one wants to learn CW then it should be his choice and not force it on him. If you are worried about the spectrum, then watch ARRL closely, they seem to be making their own band plans and none of the ham fraternity seems to know of it.

So lets not alienate the new comers to the hobby that dont know CW but would focus on the various aspects of this hobby that would take this hobby to the next level. To be a purist and claim state of our 'Hobby' is to blame yourself for not being innovative in your hobby and trying to expand and encourage others.

The author of this hobby is 23 and kudos to him but instead of making CW a requirement, I would suggest encouraging CW to the newcomers and increase your CW fraternity.

Bottom line, you dont want to be a dying breed because of CW. The hobby has progressed leaps and bounds in the last decade and my interest is to catch up on every aspect of it.

One last point, I do not believe in Echolink etc. Get a HF rig and talk overseas.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N5XM on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Why does it have to be "either/or"? I don't blame the ARRL for emphasizing the "service" aspect of things because it gives us an "in" with the politicians. It's just one more reason for the gov't to see us as being able to contribute to society when society needs help. Digital and satellite communications are wonderful unless by some awful combination of events a suitcase nuke blows up somewhere. You don't think it can happen? Think again. Anything is possible nowdays.

My understanding is that the FAA tests pilots with multiple choice questions, even commercial pilots. A Ham license is a place to get started as far as learning is concerned. Just like anything else, you use it or lose it. Getting a no-code ticket was my way of getting my foot in the door. That being said, I love the concept of the Novice license.

I feel like Ham Radio is just fine. Is it the same as it used to be 40 years ago? No. So what? Name something that's stayed the same over such a long time. Most of anything is what you make it, so it's up to the individual pure and simple. I'll continue to pursue excellence the best way I can, and leave the rest up to you folks. The ball's in your court!
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2ZXE on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
>message in English, not Morse. Now telephones were the
>new growth business and by late 50's the telegraph
>played no major role in communications.

I was watching Mad Men the other night in which is supposed to be happening in 1959. During this specific episode the head honcho asked the pretty secretary to "Send a telegram to all our customers, in which the state of our business does not change because the other head honcho had a heart attack... blah blah blah"

Taking this with the appropriate grain of salt (hey, it's TV), I would've seen that Telegrams were being used as "quick written official communications" before Telefascimiles (better known as Fax machines) were common. I would've assumed that it would've really nailed the coffin on the Telegraphs... But I digress.

(for some reason, I would've expected for offices at this time to have Wired Teletypes, unless these came later...)

I do not think that newer technology is going to kill Amateur Radio Service. There will be always somebody that wants to know how radio works. With the advent of wireless technologies like WiFi and WiMax and mobile computing becoming more prevalent, there will be more interest in people that would like to experiment with radio and Amateur Radio provides an outlet for that.

That's why d-star (and other digital voice modes) are important, because it'll keep the service relevant to upcoming technologies as they become more prevalent in the coming years. Also, it would be convenient to pack and segment QSO's within a given spectrum.

My only pet peavey is that radios for amateur service are just "ugly" compared to conventional cell phones, but that's another discussion altogether.

Personally I think that CW is fun and it'll be still around, even though there is PSK-31, RTTY, and other HF digital modes are becoming more popular with the availability of cheap/free software, you can not beat the simplicity of CW equipment.

What I think is that the trend on non voice modes is to PSK-31 as convenient as CW, and perhaps it may succeed to taking a larger chunk of the bandwidth in the coming years. But at the end of the day, the band will continue to be used... but then you may need a computer to understand what's going on.


73 - n2zxe


 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K4JSR on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Feeeee-lep sed, "CW FOREVER! DEATH TO SSB!!! AM FOREVER!!!! DEATH TO NO CODERS!!!"

What he neglected to say is that he uses a Theremin he
named Gabriel to send CW!!

Death to no-coders? With the advent of software defined radios haven't we all become coders?
It may not be Morse, but it still begins with an "M"... MACHINE CODE!!!
I *KNOW* that will be a "SOURCE SPOT" for a lot of you, but get a grip!
All God's Childrens gots ALGORITHM!!
73,
The stinky old fart from Bethlehem, Ga.
Yours for more and better global warming and whale nuking!

 
RE: Counter Progress  
by KG6WLS on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
>>Counter Progress Reply
by AI2IA on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Articles like this help to make eHam.net the kook venting site that it is. THE MORSE CODE TESTING ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED. I wrote "testing" issue. How long is it going to take reactionary hams to accept this fact? You really want to do Code? Quit crying and do it. There is no FCC rule against it.
The rest of this article supports the large gloom and doom faction, the "good old days" faction, the "I've been a ham umpty ump years snob faction, and the long parade of negative hams, if you want to call those attitudes promoting a hobby. It's more like promoting mental illness.
I have tried for a long time, but you can't get through to these knuckle heads. If you want to really ENJOY this hobby, then stay away from this negative crowd of dumbells.<<

::Yep! I'd have to agree on that one. You pretty much nailed it.

Every time an article is posted that either promotes CW (continuous wave), or is simply posted just to push peoples buttons, we get the same 'ol "beat a dead horse" reruns. It appears that eHam is a hooby to some folks, while the rest of us find our hobby at the station where the fun really is. ;-)

73
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
KW4N writes: "in 1930's the telegraph was at it's peak....and by late 50's the telegraph played no major role in communications."

That's because it was cheaper to buy teletype machines than to pay telegraph operators. Same reason steamships replaced sailing shis and diesel-electric locomotives replaced steam locomotives. Simple economics.

"One big innovation and taken for granted is the pop-top. The impact was huge, particularly in the beer industry. Investors flocked to buy into the aluminum industry. The steel industry went by the way of the telegraph key and we ended up with a 'rust belt.'"

It's a lot more complicated than that. Pop tops did not kill the steel industry nor cause the rust belt.

First off, the steel industry still exists, it's just not as big a player as it once was.

The causes of steel's decline are many and varied:

1) Industries that used steel in huge quantities (shipbuilding, building and bridge construction, auto industry, etc.) either declined or used less steel and more of other materials like plastic, *and* the products last longer.

Compare a 1950s car with a 2000s car - the 2000s car not only weighs less, it has much less steel in it. But it will probably last a lot longer than a 1950s car.

2) The US steel industry did not invest enough in new technology during the 1950s and 1960s. Meanwhile, the steel industries in other countries like Japan were either being rebuilt from WW2 destruction or built new, using the most modern technology. They were then able to turn out higher quality foreign steel at less cost.

3) Lack of import tariffs and lowered transportation costs due to new shipping technology like container ships lowered costs as well.

4) Other countries imported less US steel because they either developed their own steel industry or imported from lower-cost countries.

5) The 'rust belt' isn't just steel.

KW4N: "Morse code replaced the Pony Express, that replaced the runner, that replaced smoke signals."

And yet people still run, and ride horses, and use Morse Code.

KW4N: "Now the winds of creative destruction have hit ham radio and CW for reasons listed in previous posts."

Well, there were over 1200 of us on the ham bands this weekend for CW SS. All using Morse Code.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by NS5M on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
JJH writes: "W8JI IS RIGHT. The old FCC NOVICE ticket was 2 year CW ONLY. Non renewable."

I was under the impression that my non-renewable, 5wpm Novice ticket (WV2SWA, 1961 or so) expired in one year, not two. I haven't kept up with most of the changes in licensing though, and could be mistaken.

73 & CU on CW,
Jim
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K8YZK on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
" The old FCC NOVICE ticket was 2 year CW ONLY. Non renewable".

I know that in 1966 the Novice was one year, move up or out policy. Worked hard to get the code and theory up before the year was done.
Now the Novice did change to 2yrs non-renewable, then to renewable, but don't remember exactly when that happened.

Kurt
K8YZK
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA1RNE on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

I think Tom, W8JI nailed the "State of Our Hobby".

As he said: "People used to build things. Kids built mopeds and go karts; they worked on engines and built forts in the woods. That's changed now. The primary time occupation is video games and similar."


I've been saying the same thing for years.

I'm sure most everyone has heard of Moore's Law, which states that the number of transistors on a chip roughly doubles every 2 years.

Maybe there should be Ham's Law, which would remind all of us that to survive, ham radio must evolve with the times - and from here out, every couple of years we should expect some significant changes that will affect our service. Technology is ramping quickly - No one should expect our communications capabilities to remain as absolute fixtures in our public service infrastructure - nor should we expect future generations to rely on radio as a hobby.

If a ham operator from 1967 was suddenly transposed 40 years to 2007, he/she might think they were part of the Jetson's TV series. Today's technology has made dramatic changes to the way everyone lives and works today. Ham radio isn't necessarily taking a back seat, but it isn't business as usual either.


....WA1RNE
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by AD7KE on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
One trend I see IMHO is that the government (or should I say governements) are slowly moving certain communications systems to higher bands (for what-ever reason). High def TV is or is going to be broadcast at much higher frequencies and the current TV bands will be deallocated for that purpose. You have satelite radio (how soon will we lose AM and FM broadcast). Satalite radio is also at a much higher frequency.

Does anyone see a trend starting to happen? I get the feeling that the governement and industry are taking aim at the current amatuer allocations now (can anyone spell BPL?).

If amatuer radio is a hobby, how long do you think those who want to make money using our allocations will let us 'play' radio?
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KI4WAF on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"My understanding is that the FAA tests pilots with multiple choice questions, even commercial pilots."

Yes they do. The FAA exams also have publically available question pools.

Do they do this so that pilots can cheat their way into the skies? No. They do it because it's required by law under the Freedom of Information Act.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WB2WIK on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I "market" ham radio to youngsters mostly, when I get a chance.

The virtues:

-CW is faster than text messaging and is free, where text messaging adds minutes to your cellphone bill/program.

-Code is like a secret language understood by way less than 1% of the world, so it's cool.

-Ham radio is the old CB and the new CB, with a much richer history, more stuff you can do, providing technical challenges to be a real hobby rather than just a way to talk.

-Being a DXer improves your knowledge of geography, a lot. It can also improve your knowledge and understanding of world history, architecture, language, foods and a lot of other stuff -- kind of like travelling without the airline bills. Meeting people on the air is cool. Strangers become friends, then you can go visit them.

-A lot of hams are engineers. If you're interested in engineering, which isn't a bad field, being a ham can help.

Stuff like this. With kids having cell phones and the internet, they really don't need another way to talk to their friends, so the attraction should be something else.

WB2WIK/6

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N4QNT on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I just bought a used IC-735 for $325 on the Bay in great condition, through some wire up in a tree and worked some VK's on 40m and had FUN for that price..
What a great hobby!

Art C.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KD6SZB on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
You know, I "pretty much" stopped reading this article at "This is why bands such as 15 and 10 meters are pretty much dead." This "pretty much" rendered his credibility as "dead".

Using this logic, that would mean 2m and 70cm are long passed doomed. I'm sure everybody, with exception of one person, knows what I mean by this. And if that one person doesn't, maybe he should have actually studied the written exam instead of just memorizing the answeres. But, hey, he passed the CW exam, so I guess nothing else matters.

How does he explain the fact that CW usage in nations that abolished it as a requirement for licensing has increased?

Also, the argument that people use that CW was a "CB" filter is a complete farce. Explain to me how it filtered out the crud that's been spewing from the 147.435 repeater in Los Angeles or from a particular station in Eureka Ca that we all "know and love" on HF. Fat lot of good it did there, huh? I run a small communications repair shop and I get a chance to hear the type of activities that take place on CB, and frankly, most of that doesn't come close to what is heard from the above mentioned sources on the amateur bands. Fortunately, they are in the vast minority and amateur radio is a joy to partake in, regardless.

See you all, with a very few exceptions, down the log.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by NS5M on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
WIK writes: "Being a DXer improves your knowledge of geography, a lot. It can also improve your knowledge and understanding of world history, architecture, language, foods and a lot of other stuff -- kind of like travelling without the airline bills. Meeting people on the air is cool. Strangers become friends, then you can go visit them."

About a year ago, I gave my precocious 7-yr-old grandson an atlas, a globe, a list of my confirmed DX entities and a box of red stick-on dots. We spent some fun time putting a dot on each entity as he found it first in the atlas and then on the globe. Now, I email additions to the list every few weeks (or when I get a few new ones confirmed!) and he "does the geography" with his mom. She reports that he's not only learning the geography, but also using the atlas to learn +about+ the geography. We followed up with a birthday subscription to "National Geographic for Kids", which he enjoys, and which he "correlates" to grandpa's list. His only problem is keeping the box of dots out of his younger brother's hands.

When we talk on the telephone (he's in GA, we're in OK), it's about radio, about new entities and about a changing world - and I have hope that he's gonna want a radio of his own one day.

"Selling" the hobby (or the service, as you prefer) is more than letting a youngster push the buttons or key the microphone - it's letting it open his or her horizons.

Oh yeah: I'm learning lotsa new stuff too!

73 & CU on CW,
Jim






 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by AB7E on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

This is one of dumbest "articles" ever to show up here. Ham radio is indeed merely a hobby, so to make it fun to newcomers we need the government to legislate CW back into the mix? I spend 95% of my time on CW but that's simply a ridiculous statement.

As W8JI says, ham radio simply doesn't have the appeal to most young folks that it did fifty years ago, and that's because of changes in society (some good, some otherwise) way beyond our control from within the hobby. We can put whatever spin we want to on ham radio (i.e., "market it") but let's face it ... most newcomers don't find compelling interest here anymore. That isn't their fault and it isn't ours ... except for those who keep trying to impose their own narrow view of what is encompassed by the hobby and what isn't.

Dave AB7E
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
well voicing one's opinion is part of life including ham radio..its still a fun hobby no matter who or what you enjoy..and how your earned it..we had ours and thats our right to voice it like every one else...
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WI7B on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!


Amateur Radio in this country is a licensed radio service under the authority of the Federal Commmuications Commission. That and $3.25 will buy you a latte' grande at Starbucks.

I think none of the suggestions of the author will make Amateur Radio "fun" for the unlicensed millions. They'll make their own fun once they are licensed.

I think the future of Amateur Radio is definitively tied to the internet and cellphones. Or...am I communicating with you now on 20m? ;-)

73,

---* Ken
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N4KC on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Of course, ours is both a hobby AND a service. Nothing mutually exclusive about those terms! And I wonder how much the author of the article (you remember the article, way up there at the top, don't you?) knows about marketing.

By its charter, ARRL is obligated to promote interest in the hobby/service. They--as all marketers do--determine the targets they need to reach and what message will appeal to that target, then they develop a marketing plan. I have not seen any concerted effort to depict ham radio only as an em-comm "service." Certainly, a significant number of potential hams have an interest in that aspect, and it is prudent to show them that they can pursue that interest if they wish. Thankfully so. I have personally seen storm-spotter reports save lives. I know of much suffering averted by those who gave of their time and money to go to the Gulf Coast two years ago in the wake of Katrina. But, as pointed out by another poster, the League uses many other facets of the hobby to appeal to those who might have an interest.

If there were hundreds of young people out there who might be attracted to amateur radio by CW, you can bet the League would be capitalizing on it. But digital modes, ARISS QSOs, WinLink and the like are what will tweak their interest. I'm betting that once they are hooked, many will gravitate toward other areas, including CW, em-comm, antennas, and maybe even restoring boatanchors or building gear from scratch.

Dan, let your membership lapse if you want, but don't do it because you think the ARRL helped eliminate the code requirement. Most of the world had done it long before the FCC did it...against the lobbying of the ARRL.

If the ARRL is so wrong-headed in its methods to promote the hobby, what would you do differently? In addition to posting an article on eHam, did you contact your Section Manager and Division Director and tell them how misguided they are and offer the benefit of your expertise? Are you prepared to buy an ad, print up a brochure, provide 24-hour-a-day assistance to the press, or do any of the other things a big organization like the ARRL can and does do?

WS5M: great story! My granddaughter (7 years old) is a big fan of the Animal Planet channel. When she's over, I'll let her hear a signal from, say, Australia, and she'll find it on the globe and tell me all about the animals there. Hearing that realtime distant signal and tying it to another interest of hers brings it all home to her--just as it did when my dad let me listen to Sputnik on that old shortwave receiver in his shop back in 1957.

Don N4KC
www.n4kc.com


 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by G3SEA on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

NH6PX said " Echolink,or D-star as both to me is just internet radio. Its not as much fun as working a person directly "

He is right but in this low sunspot period + CC&R restrictions the IRLP/Echolink systems 'ie Internet Radio ' are often the only reliable 24/7 means to make a sked with far off Ham friends.

KH6/G3SEA
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA4IIF on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Actually, the old Novice license (circa 1962) was good for one year and not renewable. By the end of the year as a Novice, it was either upgrade or out. I did upgrade to General passing my General theory exam on the second try. I took both the theory and code exams at an FCC office about 60 miles from where I lived as a teenager. Times have certainly changed with ham radio, but it's still a great hobby to me.

Chuck, WA4IIF
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W2NSF on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Speaking of the old Novice license, I'd like to see a new entry level HF license (bring back the Novice bands!) so newbies to the hobby could experience the joys of HF and not just languish on the repeaters. Maybe it could be inlcuded as part of the Technician license, with the HF privleges expiring in one year, like the old Novice license. Let them operate CW and SSB on a few narrow HF bands just so they can see what I think is the best part of our hobby - shortwave communications -is all about. Clubs and elmers could provide loaner HF rigs for these new Novices. Then, if they don't like it, they can go back to the repeaters, at least knowing they've experienced the entire range of things the hobby offers. Of course, they could still upgrade to the HF license at any time. Might improve the hobby, no?
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W2DLC on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
FCC regs part 97.1 says nothing about the hobby of ham radio. Sure it can be a hobby, but the government calls it a service. That gives it purpose.

If it's just a hobby, then it's purpose can be interpreted however the one who takes up the pastime wants to interpret it. That waters down it's defined purposes.
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by G0GQK on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Why are Americans always campaigning ? Is it not possible for many of you to enjoy your spare time doing what you enjoy with amateur radio without having to keep chiding everybody about how they should be doing more for the hobby ?.

Amateur radio is a pastime. When you finish your daily grind to and from work, and if you have the time, you relax with your hobby. Yet there are people commenting every month about the state of ham radio. are they suggesting "why aren't you standing on street corners teling every passer by 'what a great thing this ham radio is, you should do it ".

If the hobby needs promotion it should be those who make a living from it, the retailers and wholesalers and the manufacturers of equipment. As for the comment about 10 and 15 metres being unused, of course it is, its the bottom of the sunspot cycle, there haven't been any sunspots for a month. When radio hams transmit they want action, the action being a response from somewhere. Americans are known for their short concentration span, if there's no bang bang for 2 minutes they get bored and find somewhere where there is some bang bang.! Right at this moment there is very little action on most of the upper bands so people don't waste their time. Seems to me the original posting was one which ought to have been put somewhere out of sight.

It won't be long now before another posting appears about the death of ham radio, and is probably even now being thunk up by somebody unable to get an answer to a CQ call !

Think on this, no sunspots for a month, and during " The contest " the bands were overflowing.

G0GQK
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KC7ULI on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Ham Radio is a multi-faceted activity. For some it is an avocation, for some it is a business. For some it is an offshoot of the technology they use in their work, whether they are a professional designer or a cellular installer. Some will get great joy from small homebuilt CW rigs that barely, but effectively communicate worldwide. Others blast the ether with high power and do nothing but sit and ragchew with their buddies. Some of us enjoy working with antique equipment and others are using the latest semiconductors to push amateur limits. It cannot be nailed down with a few conceptions, because it is much bigger than that.

What the hobby needs, though, is an anchor -- a justification to allow us to have the spectrum priviledges that we all now enjoy. If it is "just a hobby" we will lose those priviledges to those who covet them for profit. I suggest that the very best anchor which we have is to be a part of a network in Emergency Communications, especially now given the emphasis on homeland security.

Do not scoff at the viability of Amateur Radio in this application. There are many anecdotal incidents extant where ham radio has provided the crucial link. I know that cellular technology has great appeal as the communication method most likely to succeed in emergencies, but... and it's a big but, it is an infrastructure that can be defeated by a calamity. Such is not the case with amateur radio which has far more flexibility. It is not as effective as cellular most of the time, but when every other technology goes down, ham radio has the opportunity to excell. It is exactly because it is not as structured that it will succeed.

It does take dedication and sometimes hard noses for emergency coordinators to get a local ham community to work together, but, again, it is one of the facets of the hobby. Not everyone has to participate officially in this endeavor, but all of us need to realize that our anchor, that thing that allows us to enjoy every other facet and that allows all of the facets to survive an onslaught of spectrum sharks is, right now, emergency communication. Don't downplay it in lieu of other facets. As W8JI pointed out, we can't change the societal structure in which we live, we have to participate within that society. (sorry for the awful paraphrasing).

73
KS7J
ex KC7ULI
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KB2DHG on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I think that the hobby won't really die but what will eventually die off AND I PRAY I AM WRONG is the mysteque and wonder of it all. I remember when I was young and still to this day, how facinated I was with this hobby!
I also hope that with the elimination of the code requirement, CW will not Die.
Basic ly I think it is up to US as the hobbiest to expose to the general public the great hobby that it is!
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N0ZLD on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The core of what you have stated - that Amateur Radio is a hobby - could not be more true. I agree completely.

That said, there always will be differing levels of how 'serious' people take any hobby. Look at anyone who is into cars or sports or flying or astronomy or any number of hobbies.

I personally feel that making someone pass a test to be proficient in one mode (CW) to gain access to the HF bands was a bad idea. Like all things, times change and so do requirements for any number of things. A pilots license was much, much easier to get in 1920 than it is today. I don't feel that the elimnation of CW as a requirement spells its demise and death. I believe the reason why AM is far less prevalant than SSB is simply because they both accomplish the same thing, with one taking less bandwidth, and with bandwidth being 'precious', SSB obviously has it's advantages. You still can work AM, hear AM and it's included on almost every HF radio. CW may decline as a mode that's used, but only replaced by other modes that may be 'superior', similar to the AM/SSB example. I passed the 5WPM and upgraded to General and would have liked to seen the code test remain for the Extra license.

Cheers and heres to a great hobby!
N0ZLD
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N7YA on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Lets see here....


Its a hobby AND a service...can we all agree with this?

Next, 10 and 15 arent completely dead...well, i guess they are if you scan across it really fast one time and hear only a couple of W's then write the whole thing off. You have to spend a little time on on the bands and tune slowly, you would be amazed at what pops up. And lets not forget, that loud african station may not be keyed up when you go blazing by his frequency...if you think they are dead, call CQ for a bit and see what jumps in your boat. Remember, we are only barely starting up the other side of this solar pit weve been in for the last couple of years...the bands up there are dead most of the time, the same way they were dead 10 years ago at this time. Heres what i got just last weekend on 15, W's of all kinds, KP2, C5/Gambia, CO, TI, HR, HP, XE, 8P, P4, FM, ZF2, VP5, J3, FY, FY, HI, KH6, PY, PY, CE, LU, ZL, HC8, JA, V7, CX, PJ2, CT3...granted, quite a few of those were contest (others were just recent qsos), but it was on 15 and i was barefoot with a vee. you need to hang out there for a little bit to see whos up there. If you did this, and did all the right things...then just be patient, in a couple of years those bands will be screaming! Looking back through my log from the last solar peak, wow...i was working a new band country (or alltime new one) just about everyday, if anything the bands were open all over the place, and late too. Its coming, just be patient.

The hobby/service is not dying...our comraderie is, unfortunately. when everyone is certain that they alone are right and everyone else is wrong, then we start to decay. and this leaves us wide open to attack from services who could make money off our bands. This is hard to convey to a group of people who would agree with me because its the other guy who is wrong and should shape up...lots of sabre rattling in this hobby these days, what happened to us?

We really shouldnt be nitpicking eachother to death and try to enjoy our radio time and eachothers comraderie, this is when we really need to do this. Just think about the things we attack eachother over...absolutely ridiculous...think of all the crap we jump up onto the soapbox over, pointless. No matter how important we think we are, were wrong.

I saw one poster say "Ham radio is a technical hobby, not a fun hobby"...i hope he was just being sarcastic, because that really reflects our imbalance in the hobby/service...why cant it be both? Hey, whatever...it IS both to me. I still enjoy doing this stuff, it doesnt make me cool or important, it doesnt do that for you either so why are we getting all worked up about a hobby/service that most people in the world couldnt care less about?

Im not posting this for me, i really would like to see a change in our attitudes towards one another. divided we fall. Does this make sense to any of you?

73...Adam, N7YA
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W9SZ on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Ham radio is many things to many people. We are allowed the privilege of using the frequencies we have because the public sees us as a service. So it behooves some of us to be involved in some sort of public service activities to justify our existence. I am involved in ARES myself.

Having said that, those of us who are in it also consider it a hobby. It's very diversified. For the hobby part of it, I'm involved in HF DXing, contesting, ragchewing, playing around with QRP (I don't limit myself only to QRP), antenna design and construction, equipment design, digital modes, VHF weak-signal work, microwave weak-signal work. I'm active on 1.8 through 10368 MHz with 24192 MHz right around the corner. Everything I use on 50 MHz and above is home-brew, including antennas.

I haven't gotten excited about D-STAR, spread-sprctrum, ATV or county hunting yet. Probably lots more facets of the hobby I'm not involved in (yet). There are only so many hours in a day. Next year may be different. I'm always seeming to add on new interests. I've also taken an interest in lowfer activities recently.

BTW 15 and 10 meters are mostly dead these days because we're at the bottom of the solar cycle. Wait a few years and those bands will be crowded again. I can't wait to work DX mobile on 10 meters again!

73, Zack W9SZ
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KG6WLS on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
As a poster so humbly put it: "on the Echolink,or D-star as both to me is just internet radio. Its not as much fun as working a person directly."

Well I hate to bust your bubble, butt you're on INTERNET RADIO right now and it DOESN'T require an amateur license to operate. The other modes that were mentioned DO require an amateur license to operate. So, you’re not working us DIRECTLY either.

Please, don’t think for even a moment that you or anyone else’s humble opinions, or repetitive and endless prattle in this forum on the decadence of ham radio (as viewed by the minority) will be taken with any validity just because the Element 1 was dropped. Jeeeez, get over it and move forward. The state of the hobby/service is what you make of it on the air waves, not on the internet.

I agree that this IS one of the dumbest “articles”. All an author has to do is put the two letters “CW” together in any arrangement of a topic, and the same ‘ol “beat a dead horse” roundtable discussion continues. All this article does is stir the “sh*t pot” even more so the same folks can repeatedly come in here to voice their same negative opinions time and again. It has no technical merit and its sour milk. And, when milk gets old, what do you do with it??

I’d like to see more technical articles appear on eHam instead of this crap. But even so, the author/s that post technical articles tend to get blasted as well.

eHam is a hobby to some folks, while the rest of us find our hobby at the station where the fun really is. ;-)

Adios Amigos!!

73
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K0RGR on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Well, I would say that the only thing the author has "nailed" is his own feet to the floor.

Arguments about how to market ham radio have been around forever. Right now, public service is the one that works. We get several hundred people in for SKYWARN training here every year - in a very small city. We have lots of good hams who only got a ticket for SKYWARN and/or ARES, and have gone on to many other things.

I do think we need to find a way to emphasize how "cool" it is to talk to somebody on the other side of the world with no Internet connection - particularly if you're using a little box and a piece of wire for an antenna. But, that is something that appeals to only a tiny minority - you either 'get it' or you don't.

Not all Public Service work is ARES/Emergency work. We provide communications for a number of local events, particularly those that can't get reliable coverage with cellphones, like a couple marathons and 100-mile bike rides in the area. I would like to see more emphasis on this, and more effort on the part of all ham clubs to "make it so".

Some kids think Morse Code is cool - others don't.
We've got a lot of damage control to do for what the no-code Tech license has done to us in the last couple decades - not because there's no code test, but because we took several HUNDRED THOUSAND new hams and stuck them on 2 meters, where they either upgraded or died. I think we've lost most of those guys - but I do see a lot of them coming back, now that they can get on HF. Many of them, oddly enough, are doing CW too.

Most of all, I wish ARRL had gotten what they asked for out of the licensing changes - a new Novice license with some HF privileges and merge Tech with General. But we have to live with what we got, instead.

We're also getting some of the people the no-code thing was supposed to yield - the 'techy' types, who are more interested in learning how to make things work than yakking on 75 meters. Yahoo!

EchoLink IS ham radio. Get over it.

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KB2DHG on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
OK OK OK I AM BEING BEAT UP HERE! LOL!
GEE people don't get me wrong... I love this hobby and have been active for decades!
YES you all made your points expensive, well OK my other hobby is collecting and racing vintage Porsche's TALK ABOUT AN EXPENSIVE HOBBY?

When I mentiond the expence I was thinking in terms of a young person just coming into the hobby and getting started. I Just would like to see some less expensive rigs out there...

As a VE I can tell you that on avarage we are getting between 1 -4 new hams each month and between 2 -4 upgrades a month so that is a good sign that the hobby is growing... What I would like to see is more kits and kit building. more hands on stuff like back in the 50's and 60's

My conserns with CW is that again I am using my own feelings here, If I were never forced to learn Morse Code I might have never given the effort to, and in not doing so would have never known the fun and reward of CW. so that is why I would like to see the code as a requirement.

AMATEUR RADIO IS A WONDERFUL AND REWARDING HOBBY!
Of ALL my hobbies it is top of my list. So I welcome all of you with your comments be it positive or negative! All your showing me is your love and passion for the future of MY HOBBY! BRAVO my fellow HAM's!
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N0AH on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I just love hearing people saying 10/15 meters are dead due to a lack of interested Hams........time to take these statements to the vet for one last ride-
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by VE6TL on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Ham radio is dead when nobody feels passionate about it. By the sheer volume of comments, it seems alive and well! Anyone who thinks CW is dead or dying should try working a DXpedition or one of the major contests. Quit worrying and be happy!!!

Jerry
VE6CNU
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WX4O on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Ham radio is a 'fun' hobby... just depends on what you call 'fun'. I quit MARS after 20 years because I was bored with it. I haven't quit CW because I'm not bored with it.
I haven't quit nets, SSB, digital modes etc. for the same reason... I'm not bored with them.

There is no 'RULE' that says I have to be proficient or enjoy any mode at all. There is no 'RULE' that says manufacturers have to keep providing us with new equipment. They do it because it (hopefully) makes them a profit. EmComm has become much overhyped. There is no 'RULE' that says I must participate in it, but I would at a local level. I'm becoming bored with it too.

Everyone has their own 'thing', and should. Just ENJOY the hobby and be happy it's still around.

73
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by AC7ZL on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
With all due respect to the author of the article above and the authors and responders to similar articles:

I liked the recent "go-box" articles, criticism be damned. Somebody actually considers a design target and likely mitigating circumstances, and then cobbles together equipment to address the design goal. Plenty of knowledge to share... and plenty of substance on which to base suggestions for improvement.

I like construction articles...Maybe a posting involves a part a haven't worked with before, or an an assembly technique that is new to me. It might even be completely old-school and retro, but something whose value lies purely in the experience.

I like antenna articles. Yeah, I want a full-sized vertical for 80 meters... For most of us, it ain't gonna happen. I enjoy hearing about people having success loading gutters, pieces of wire thrown up into the trees, balloon and kite "sky-hooks," hidden dipoles in the attic, near-ground horizontal loops, and what-have you. This is useful to anyone with a less-than optimal antenna situation (which I would guess amounts to about 98% of us.)

I like articles about theory. I like understanding what I'm working with, and I enjoy understanding the physics behind what works and what does not. Information is useful because it can make us more successful and productive. There is also pride and self-satisfaction in conquering and mastering a subject.

I like articles about technique--How people snare weak signals, how people make printed circuit boards, talk to the ISS, bounce signals off of meteor trails or the moon, how people salvage usable parts from junk, how people make equipment perform in ways not envisioned (or intended) by the original manufacturer, and so on.

I like articles regarding personal experience with commercial equipment. Which radio do you find most sensitive...and which is deaf as a doornail? Who provides good customer service when it comes to obtaining parts and who abandons the buyer after the sale? Which rig is a good deal used, and what should a person pay for it?

Having said all that, there is one class of article topic of which I am growing increasingly weary, namely, "What ham radio is/is not/is supposed to be," and "Why ham radio is dying."

Set emotion aside for a moment and ask yourself what purpose it serves to go on and on about things like...appliance operators vs homebrewers... digital vs analog modes....code or no-code... wireless vs VOIP... "hobby" vs "utility"... "cranky old farts" vs "whipper-snappers who didn't really earn their ticket because the standards were dumbed down." Note that there is nothing technical in any of this, nothing about technique, nothing new to learn, in fact, nothing useful at all... just a bunch of pointless head-butting.

At the risk of making myself the subject of my own complaint, let me propose the following generalization: For each of us, ham radio is what we (each of us) make of it, no more, and no less.

This means that the way to become a "real" ham (and by extension, to ensure the future of ham radio itself) is to simply go out and *do something* radio-related.

Then share your experience and discoveries with the rest of us. Write about *that*, not about what other people should be doing, or why the interests of some other ham is going to somehow lead to the demise of amateur radio.

...just my 2 cents worth.

Pete
AC7ZL
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N7YA on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
KB2DHG sez..
"When I mentiond the expence I was thinking in terms of a young person just coming into the hobby and getting started. I Just would like to see some less expensive rigs out there... "

Build one!! Its hard to beat the price of a rig you built from parts...its especially hard to beat the feeling you get from getting on the air with something you put together, bench tested and fired up yourself.

Besides, if building isnt your thing, there are plenty of inexpensive rigs out there...the MFJ qrp rigs come to mind, WELL below $200, also some pretty affordable modern rigs out there too, around the $500 to $600 range.

Im not a fuddy duddy old fart, but i must say that kids entering the hobby years ago simply expected to build something, they looked forward to it. Im sure that sense of excitement is still out there regardless of all the readymade technology we now have in the last 50 years. I love modern technology, i love advancements in science and especially our hobby and its gear...i love options.

But to address your lament, i say roll up your sleeves, break out some HB books, dust off the cobwebs and start making some solder smoke! You really will feel good about what youve accomplished when all is said and done. it will be a blast. And speaking from experience, when i qso with a fellow ham on the air, if he mentions his rig being "HB"...it ALWAYS piques my interest. I will always respect any other ham i speak with as being a member of our family, but Homebrewers always have a seat reserved at the respect bar with me.

73...Adam, N7YA
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K8QV on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

Ham radio's not dead, but sometimes I wish the Internet would die.
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KG6OMK on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I just don't see where there is a problem. There are more hams now than ever before and the numbers of new ones is on the rise.

As for home brewing, we are in a new "golden age" where the technology is changing fast. Parts are easy to get without even leaving your house and cheap too. sections that would have taken weeks to build are now available in ICs and you can get samples for the asking. many, many hams are building and exchanging ideas for new designs over the many email lists. We can now send CAD files and no longer have to depend on printed periodical for communication.



 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KI4WAF on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Speaking of the old Novice license, I'd like to see a new entry level HF license (bring back the Novice bands!) so newbies to the hobby could experience the joys of HF and not just languish on the repeaters"

We have that already. Technicians can operate voice on 10M (28.3-28.5) and CW on 40, 80, and if I recall correctly 15.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
we<and I> have gotten over the change Mike and the change for many will always be considered a dumb ruling..

as for this being internet radio well i dont see any radio attached to it..and i can't operate here unless i obtain the local requirement which is around $50 plus locaal address.

our feelings were never being directed towards anyone in particular but we did have the right to voice it..

 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KA2DDX on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Wow - there's a million directions to go with this one. So, how's about I try to keep it short. Ham radio is not dead. CW is not dead. Old ideas (ideas no longer relevant) die. New ideas (ideas relevant to us as a whole) live on for awhile. Without a CW test, ham radio won't die. We'll operate people using morse code who want to operate code, not forced to operate code. So, we will always ask the question "Is cw/ssb/psk/packet/rtty/sstv (etc........)relevant". The yes's keep on living, the no's eventually fade away. CW came into prominence when the commercial use of it was relevant. The internet came into prominence when the government and commercial uses (in that order) came into prominence. Times change and so do we. To keep something alive beyond it's normal lifecycle is just another form of welfare.

Just my thoughts, licensed for 45 1/2 years and operate mostly CW. CW will stop being relevant to me when I no longer can qso other people with it. Same goes for all of us.

Now, as for the notion of 5wpm being easy enough for anybody to do, nope, I can't agree. I've known too many highly skilled technicians who (for reasons beyond my understanding) wasted too much time flunking a 5wpm code test multiple times. They didn't get licensed. We are the losers as we always lost highly skilled people for ham radio. They take their interests somewhere else and we (you and I) never get them back.

Just asking some of us to think about it again, that's all.
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KV1M on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"While it's always a good thing to help out in an emergency, we are forgetting the fact that ham radio is primarily a hobby."

Man o man, I am so surprised Chip hasn't responded to that one!

I agree, it IS a hobby.

If you can help "when all else fails" (doesn't happen all that much any more) then all well and good.
But it really is a hobby.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KG6WLS on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
>RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby' Reply
by N6HPX on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend! as for this being internet radio well i dont see any radio attached to it..and i can't operate here unless i obtain the local requirement which is around $50 plus locaal address.<

::Well, you really need to look a little bit broader then. This is the INTERNET... and this is eHam... where we talk about RADIO...hence the name INTERNET RADIO.

Maybe you should try Echolink when you're not at home, Hmmm?? Instead of being stuborn, why not put that computer to use until you get back to the radio. It's an option.

When you get some free time (and you have an open mind), look at these links.
http://www.echolink.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echolink
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/echolink/



eHam is a hobby to some folks, while the rest of us find our hobby at the station where the fun really is. ;-)

Adios Amigos!!

73

 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KT5D on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I usually refrain from commenting to these postings but I gotta respond to the gentleman who said there is more CW on the air today than there has ever been, or something to that effect. Dead wrong, man! Been doing this for almost 40 years now as mostly a CW man being pretty much active for all that time and I've NEVER seen it so dead. And yeah I know all about sunspot cycles and where we are right now in the current one.

I didn't like the idea of no code licensing but I accepted it as inevitable and necessary in an attempt to save the hobby (yes, it is most assuredly a hobby to the majority of us). I doubt it is or will work. That wasn't what was holding the hordes away from the hobby. The reality is there is no horde out there! Amateur radio has lost it's appeal to most of the people who we need to keep it going, namely the youngsters in the crowd. Just walk around the hamfests and notice who the age majority is. Gotta be pushing 50 or more.

Part of my duties at work is to provide new hire engineer training, both classroom and OJT. In the last 15-20 years there has been a dramatic decline in the number of electronic hobbists as is apparent in the lack of skills I now see in our young engineers. Used to be that more than half of my class were hams. In my last two classes, there was one! A question I routinely ask these folks is, "Why or how did you decide to choose electrical engineering as your avocation?" It is exceedingly rare that they say because I find it fascinating, interesting, challenging, rewarding, etc., all those common answers one would expect. Most recite monetary reasons; it pays good.

Amateur radio will continue to decline irregardless of the ARRL's efforts or anyone else's unless it can somehow become fun again to youngsters. There has got to be a compelling reason for them to want to turn off their FaceBook or XBox long enough to even give ham radio a try! At the moment, there isn't one!


 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by AA4PB on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Lets see now, by your reasoning Ham radio is just a hobby. Hams shouldn't be providing any public service. Radio frequencies belong to the public. Why then should the general public provide a wide range of radio frequencies throughout the spectrum for your personal enjoyment? Maybe Congress should just auction all the ham frequencies so that companies can use them to provide wireless infrastructure that will benefit the general public.

By all means drop your ARRL membership. That sure helps to ensure that someone stands up to defend your right to a hobby in the radio spectrum.

By the way, I believe it was WARC that first discontinued the CW testing requirement. That was followed by many other countries and finally the FCC followed suit.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W5HTW on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<As a poster so humbly put it: "on the Echolink,or D-star as both to me is just internet radio. Its not as much fun as working a person directly."

Well I hate to bust your bubble, butt you're on INTERNET RADIO right now and it DOESN'T require an amateur license to operate. The other modes that were mentioned DO require an amateur license to operate. So, you’re not working us DIRECTLY either....

HUH? This is RADIO? HUH?? And again, HUH? There is no radio connected to my computer, or to my ISP, or to my phone line. HUH?

Oh, I see further down the thread, "if you talk about radio, it is radio." So I and some buddies sit around the table in McDonald's, and talk about DX and that makes the Golden Arches RADIO? Or I speak with a fellow on the phone and we discuss radio, so my phone is now a radio?

Nope, I am NOT ON ANY DARNED INTERNET RADIO. I am on the Internet. No radio involved.

But I honestly don't think you can comprehend that. Let me try this. If I pick up a cat and talk to a friend about photography, does that make the cat into a camera? Can I take pictures with him? If I sit in the car and talk about airplanes, does that make my car fly?

I think I'll call my friend and talk about steak. Maybe my phone will turn into a grilled ribeye.

Ed
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KB8UPB on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
For those that claim amateur radio is "just a hobby" I suggest you read FCC §97.1. Here is the text I am referencing.

§97.1 Basis and purpose.
The rules and regulations in this Part are designed to provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following principles:

(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.

(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.

(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art.

(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.

(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance international goodwill.

What does this mean? Quite simply stated the FCC who granted US amateurs our licenses claims that amateur radio is to provide a skilled pool of operators in the event of an emergency (see point A) and that we are suppose to enhance goodwill, in other words quit complaining on internet, turn on your radio and make a new friend (see point E). I know there are people out there to talk to, I myself spent three hours today calling cq on 20 meters (thanks to those that actually answered me).
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2XE on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AMEN!

Best article ever written here.

Thank you and 73
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by RADIOGUYR2 on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I liked his article. Face it most of the whiners are the ones that couldn't cut it in the real ham radio hobby. They whined and complained so long that the government probably got tired of their "same old song" and asked that the code be dropped.

Ahhh you think that was the FCC? Nope it was the rest of the world. The intelectual thinking of the countries to the north and south of us is about a thimble to a bucket compaired to the US. Look at how they treat our bands today? Working SSB down in the CW section to make dx contacts. Competitive--no! The easy way out--yes. Why because they know that the US hams can't do anything but listen down in the cw band on SSB. So they viloate OUR band plan to benifit their own ego's.

Now the so called teckies that are SUPPOSED to have been licensed never happened. Why because they listened to the other new no code whimps and ran not walked away. It amazing what you hear on the ham bands today. Some EXTRAS that don't know one end of a diode from the other or a resistor from a transistor. Yet these are the same eggheads that want you to respect them for the fact that they are EXTRAS. This then turns into the biggest joke that the ARRL has put out yet.

CW was never their to stop anyone. Well at least the ones that should be in the hobby could pass the SIMPLE LEARNING CURVE. The rest that didn't were eliminated and restricted from enjoying what the ones that worked hard at attaining had. It was simple. You worked for what you got.

Not today however, nope the whiners and whimps that couldn't cut it demanded their rights to be where the ones that achieved and worked for had. They wanted the same reconigition as the person who worked for theirs had. If they couldn't cut it--why how dare you say they were lazy and underachivers-- they have their rights to flap their lips on the ham bands too.

So respect for the achievers went out the window when the underachievers plopped their bottoms down in front of a mic and started showing others exactly how stupid and ignorant they really were. This contenues today with the no code loosers.

Now some of these people are going to say--how dare you infer that I am a whinner, whimp and looser-- I have my extra class license. Really, well then lets go on the air and you can I am sure explane the reasion we use tank circuits for the output of the transmitter. Instruct others in the correct methode of determining two resistors in series/parallel. Simple for a EXTRA class ham I would think. Oh here let me pick the 4 resistors for you to show how to calculate it out.

What you want to bet almost 80% of the new EXTRA class ham dummys can't do it!!!

I rest my case.

Ham radio is a hobby. Most hams think they are going to save the world when a event strikes. They are deluted in thinking so. That is why the Red Cross and others now are not into hams being their. Why-- same reasion that they didn't want to study and disaplin themselves to learn the code. Being a whining, whimpy, lazy blokes they want someone who is going to go the distance, adapt,improvise and overcome their personal problems to achieve the respect and enjoy the glory of helping others when they do so.

Till hams can show that they are made of the right stuff--which I doubt most of the new no-code whiner, underachievers will, yes one best think of ham radio as a kids communicators hobby band viewed as such in the future. The price of the radio is about the only level of achievement for these people to bragg about. Other than that, I doubt if most of these people even know what all the knobs and switches are for or ever care to learn how to use them.

Shocking but, TRUE... real hams now are learning by using the hobby to attain further goals in life.

As history has shown, most started in ham radio and ended up great people with competive skills to advance further taking on more difficult tasks while being proud of their accomplishments and achivements. They brought honor and pride to the ham community as well as themselves.

Today, WELL lets just say they are on the bands having fun terrorizing the rest of the hams. But, one good thing the ARRL says--they are filling the void of the airwaves with their babbling.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Sorry Mike But I still dont use echo link and dont support internet radio..there is no voice attached to it and I can't collect the QSL for a confirmed dx contact. Just the way it is. Here in Japan we still need a license or permit to operate and thats the way real radio operates. Not like this stuff.

This computer is used to connect with family and friends in the Philippines. Where I havemy station and there is no d-star there as of yet..as its too expensive at the moment, and i dont have any plans to up grade there. Just the way it is out here
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Lets see no radio,no microphone and no qsl card for a dx to america, now thats real radio..hmmm
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by VK4DGG on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I have been a Ham in the US and abroad since the early 70's, (1973 I think), and since then Ham Radio's death has been predicted several times. Ham Radio is changing, it is always changing, some of us are innovative, and bring forth new ideas and technology. Some of us are public spirited and want to be involved. Some of us somewhat resemble the mad scientists or the crazed inventor trying to make radio waves do strange things. Some of us just want to talk on the radio with a minimum of effort. These are all valid Ham pursuits and there are more I failed to mention. I don't see any Hams leaving the Hobby except by their own hand. Removing CW from the license requirement does not mean the death of CW as we still have AM nets, when was SSB accepted as the norm? We still have CW nets and plenty of CW activity on the bands. I know this is blasphemy to many Hams but for many years, I believe many folks wanting a license looked on the CW part of the exam as a useless, time wasting exercise. We must all accept the fact that Hams are of many stripes when it comes to their approach to our hobby. None is any less of a Ham than others. When you call someone an appliance operator, aren't you showing bias simply because they don't fit your notion as to what a Ham radio operator should be? I am an appliance operator, but I build pretty good antennas, I have built a couple of "Ham Shacks in a Box" for grab and go emergency sets. I am active with QRP and solar powered portable stations. Does the fact that I can't build a radio or work 30 wpm code make me any less a Ham?


73's
Mark
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by VE7HRA on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Our club just had an open house. It was very suprising how many people were interested in CW and they were new hams or are thinking about getting into the hobby. The number of truely interested people just blew us away. I think the hobby will live on.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6AJR on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
well, I see we have found a new way to bring up the old code, no code arguments....



And at your ripe old age of 23, you were born in or about 1984, so lets see I had been a ham for 6 years when you were born, had spent 2 years in korea, and a year in Nam, was on my second marriage and working as a supervisor for the State of California in Emergency Serivces.



Back to the original troll, I mean article. I heard the same whining when they said SSB will ruin ham radio, and the spark gapper's complained about the cw boys.. ever read 50 year old QST's ?



its a hobby. if you want to do EM -COM then fine, there is a place for it. moonbounce? 2 meter tropo? do you like DX, well go ahead and work the, Contesting, great fun. satalites, why sure. ATV . fine ,echo link, ok. but I don't like it. and elmering, VE-ing etc. building radios, amps and antennas??



there is so much to do in ham radio. I have been a ham longer than nthe author of this doom and gloom song, and I tell you what..




The bands in the toilet?? Even at the solar miniimum ( now) there were still pile ups on 10, and 15 meters these past few weekends, CQP and sweepstakes, why you could not find an open frequency any where on the band.




get off the internet ( eham) and put up a fan dipole and go work some one, and cw is still legal, so go work someone on 20 cw.



Get a little life under your belt, then complain. At 23 you still have lots to learn and see...
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6AJR on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
well, I see we have found a new way to bring up the old code, no code arguments....



And at your ripe old age of 23, you were born in or about 1984, so lets see I had been a ham for 6 years when you were born, had spent 2 years in korea, and a year in Nam, was on my second marriage and working as a supervisor for the State of California in Emergency Serivces.



Back to the original troll, I mean article. I heard the same whining when they said SSB will ruin ham radio, and the spark gapper's complained about the cw boys.. ever read 50 year old QST's ?



its a hobby. if you want to do EM -COM then fine, there is a place for it. moonbounce? 2 meter tropo? do you like DX, well go ahead and work the, Contesting, great fun. satalites, why sure. ATV . fine ,echo link, ok. but I don't like it. and elmering, VE-ing etc. building radios, amps and antennas??



there is so much to do in ham radio. I have been a ham longer than nthe author of this doom and gloom song, and I tell you what..




The bands in the toilet?? Even at the solar miniimum ( now) there were still pile ups on 10, and 15 meters these past few weekends, CQP and sweepstakes, why you could not find an open frequency any where on the band.




get off the internet ( eham) and put up a fan dipole and go work some one, and cw is still legal, so go work someone on 20 cw.



Get a little life under your belt, then complain. At 23 you still have lots to learn and see...
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by AB7JK on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Someone should ask Hillery and Rudy whether they are code or no code. That will make up my mind who to vote for. I'll bet Ron Paul is a free bander.
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K3DRQ on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
When I submitted this article in September, I had no idea this article would start a "flame war" two months later!

Lots of people have good points here. I had no idea that the death of ham radio had been discussed before, or that stuff I take for granted (like repeaters) were considered "not ham radio" in the same way that Echolink is today.

I don't agree with all of you, though, since the future does seem to be grim for ham radio. The culture has changed, a lot, and the way it is going is not good for ham radio.

Since we're talking about the Internet, let's mention chat rooms and how they are nowhere near as popular as they once were, having been replaced by private communication such as AIM. My sister (18) tells me this is because of all the bad history associated with chat rooms (child molesters, etc.) I've heard from old-school BBS folks that people were a lot less privacy concerned in those days - not sure if they're right, too young to witness that. Perhaps the "Revenge of the Nerds" has succeeded - we are becoming more and more isolated from each other, just like they are!

On another note, my sister once told me that her generation considers radio "obsolete." I then asked her, "How do you find out about new [musical] bands, then?" She said that it's mostly word of mouth from friends these days. I don't see how that's possible, but I'm obviously wrong.

Neither of these things paint a positive picture for the future of ham radio. The article had nothing to do with CW or complaints about who knows less than others (I myself forgot what a diode and a transistor are!) It simply had to do with the marketing of ham radio to a modern society which doesn't seem to care. CW just can (could have been) used for that purpose.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by AB7JK on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I enjoy code but the qsos are sooo boring - always the same old meaningless RST, QTH, name, bla bla bla. I would like someone to transmit an interesting story in code. Maybe the Grapes of Wrath or the screenplay to The Greatest Story Ever Told, or Beach Blanket Babylon.

I suppose it will never happen because the FCC would consider it a one way transmission but I suppose if the receiving station sent a letter or two at the end of each chapter I suppose it could be alright. Maybe the ARRL could petition the FCC.

Mavis
 
The Fallacy of Intent  
by AI2IA on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
To Daniel, K3DRQ:
Words are autonomous. When you write or say something it may or may not mean exactly what you intended it to mean, especially written words. Written words can be far more closely examined by readers than spoken words by listeners unless recorded.

Your article stands on its own meaning and on how the readers filtered it into their own heads. This long string is the result of you placing it before this kind of audience (whatever kind that may be beyond any imagining).

Few read or think objectively. Many as you can see have their own strongly held agendas into which they are more than willing to hammer your article. In December it will long be forgotten, but the agendas of the posters will still be glued in their heads. Everything said in the past will be said again and again and again. Nothing gets done here on eHam.net. It is only idle chatter. Many feel good having had their say, but it is only an illusion.
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by OE5AKM on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Not my philosophy!

73, Alfred, OE5AKM
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K4LD on November 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I think we are marketing ham radio wrong... We are really pushing for the public service aspect, but don't care to show what we do when there is no fire or natural disaster . We need to show we can DX, collect QSL cards, and rag chew on 75 meters. If it was left to the public service folk, we would all run 2 meters and 440 on converted Motorola HT's and there would be no such this as HF except for above the 14.300 MHz on 20 meters. Lets show we can also have a good time and make life long friends!
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by NXET on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
VK4DGG
I have been a Ham in the US and abroad since the early 70's, (1973 I think), and since then Ham Radio's death has been predicted several times. Ham Radio is changing, it is always changing, some of us are innovative, and bring forth new ideas and technology. Some of us are public spirited and want to be involved. Some of us somewhat resemble the mad scientists or the crazed inventor trying to make radio waves do strange things. Some of us just want to talk on the radio with a minimum of effort. These are all valid Ham pursuits and there are more I failed to mention.

----------------------------------------------
Yada yada yada. Typical nothing new here.

_______________________________________________

I don't see any Hams leaving the Hobby except by their own hand.
---------------------------------------------
Really!! Do you have both eyes open??
______________________________________________


Removing CW from the license requirement does not mean the death of CW as we still have AM nets, when was SSB accepted as the norm? We still have CW nets and plenty of CW activity on the bands. I know this is blasphemy to many Hams but for many years, I believe many folks wanting a license looked on the CW part of the exam as a useless, time wasting exercise.

-----------------------------------------
Typical attitude of a VK do-dah do-dah good time charley. Not a care in the world. Doesn't care about tearing up US bands for the good time by transmitting his AM or SSB down in the "useless CW band" do-dah do-dah

I think what your missing, besides respect for the US hams bands as R2 said, is that CW was used to root out the weak and do-dahs. It was a learning and work exercise prize that you, as R2 says, thimbles can't seem to get between the ears. IF they wanted a license bad enough they would have worked, studied and like the rest, learned how to make it happen. I agree with R2, instead it turned into a whiners convention and was deleted in favor of the money it makes for the vendors who sell radios.

in reguards to your "time waisting exercise" maybe if they had to work hard and all they would have more respect for the ham bands and others, unlike some of the VK's who we hear in the cw section of the band that don't.
______________________________________________

We must all accept the fact that Hams are of many stripes when it comes to their approach to our hobby.

-------------------------------------------------
Do you know it takes a VK ten times as long to say absoluty nothing than a US ham does?

_________________________________________________

None is any less of a Ham than others. When you call someone an appliance operator, aren't you showing bias simply because they don't fit your notion as to what a Ham radio operator should be?

--------------------------------------------------
NO! As the great people say, stupid is as stupid does. If your appliance operator and dumb, there is no help all is lost. There is no notion as to what he is. ITS A FACT JACK. that is why they call him,and you, a no nothing appliance operator. It makes the statement that the person who is operating the appliance knows little or nothing about what they are doing. Thus, they coined the phrase appliance operator. Admitting that one is, is not a good thing where I come from. End of statement.
______________________________________________________

I am an appliance operator, but I build pretty good antennas,
---------------------------------------------------

PRETTY GOOD antennas! that statement is a reality check for the twilight zone. Sort of on the same thought about being just a little bit pregnet!!!!

I would think they either worked or didn't. However, your statement, None is any less of a Ham than others leaves a lot to be desired. How can you say this. When a appliance operator knows nothing and a US ham makes it work because he knows how it does work. NONE is LESS than the OTHER?? I find it interesting that ya all think so strange.

LOL

Do all you VK's up their have such a great sence of mixed up humor?

Again its not the CW useage now but the CW road block that forced you to apply yourself before you were given the license. Weather you used it later or not is incorectly the issue. If you work for something you respect it more than if it was just given to you freely. Fear of losing the investment one made in time and effort goes a long way for respecting the rights and regulations.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W7ETA on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Shame on you for publishing on such non-sense.

"..ham radio is increasingly being marketed as a utility and public service and not a hobby."
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by LNXAUTHOR on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
off_topic:

- here's a tip to get more enjoyment out of reading discussions related to this type of article:

- start at the bottom of the thread!

- you'll inevitably find that the discussion will often devolve into diatribes laced with off-topic name-calling, and rants that prove ignorance can be worn on one's sleeve without any sense of modesty...

on_topic:

- CW is still here and won't go away... even though no longer part of formal testing, this skill can still be pursued by hams... amateur radio (in the U.S.) is many things to many people, but will remain defined by the FCC... and even though the ARRL doesn't follow all my views, it appears to be the largest single organizational voice representing amateur radio...
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA1YTW on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
It is about time someone (WW3QB) remembered the purpose as set forth in Part 97!!!
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by AB7JK on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
You all take everything too serious. You need to take a drink, kick off your shoes, sit back and enjoy life instead of squawking back and forth trying to force people to believe what they don't want to.

Mavis
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with the comment on the round table discussion at McDonalds, it seems like if we bring it up even in short discussion we get slammed for thinking about it...its our right to chat with what we like and no FCC can change that either.
Eham doesn have a radio license attached to it and yes thats true, but if it did there be alot not on the internet..but with the Ham rig at home I can transmit on a real radio, line of sight or when the dx is rolling in and work some real dx on the other side..and thats what i like about it..not like internet d-star radio, or echo link its just not the same and will never be like the real radio. It requires connections to the internet and its like cheating when it comes to working the dx. Which is what hams like to do work DX. Via a radio and not through a computer..thats the new toy and it might not be around as long as people think as the price of the toys are not in everyone's pocket book..my HT's and HF gear are still alot more fun.
Here in Japan I still need the permit and also Korea, Singapore and UAE I need to be a resident of there country, and there is no way I can do that and work for the US Government....and thats who I am emplyed by..uncle sam not the us navy...

Sayanora, and Salamat po

 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K7FD on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
...which is why I don't elmer anymore. Only ones coming into the hobby are either church groups or orange vest wannabees...

73 John K7FD
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KG6WLS on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
eHam needs more technical topics in these forums...not this garbage.

While eHam is a hobby to some folks, the rest of us find our hobby at the station where the fun really is. ;-)

73
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by FORMER_K0PD on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Pretty much in agreement with the article,but 10 & 15 meter's are dead because of propogation. But Ham radio should be fun and fun for all. I feel what ever form of radio you operate should be fun. As for CW i passed the 20wpm and have not done hardly any CW contact's as it turned out to be just not my cup of tea.Will Ham Radio die out? I think ham radio as we've all grew up with will, but i think in the far future it will not be so easily regonizeable compared to what we have today........
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WW3QB on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Part 97 justifies the existence of amateur radio (that’s the service), but does not require any individual to do anything. An individual ham can do anything he wants, or not do anything at all. That’s the hobby. There should be enough hams doing the various things in Part 97 to keep amateur radio useful and alive. If that is not the case, then amateur radio is in trouble. Fortunately, there are so many hams doing so many different things.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
What we have here is "Blow Back". I remember when the decision to almost drop CW. Every whinner said GOOD.
Plenty of articals and negative comments about us "Old Fart CW hams"

Simple counter reaction. You do not see many Anti-coder ranters NOW!

yes, eham needs more tech articals too.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KD5SPJ on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I somewhat agree with some of your points. But I must say I really want to relearn CW and don't mind if it is no longer "required". The reason I think this is I believe those of us who are not only willing to learn code, and use it can still do so and the fact it is no longer required isn't such a bad thing, to me, it means more people getting into our great hobby and still being able to use HF.

I would like to upgrade to General or Extra and learn and practice code at my leisure since my time is somewhat of a commodity at times!

73s to all here!

Airborne, all the way!

KD5SPJ
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KE5QKT on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
There are so many different facets to ham radio, and to me, thats what makes it great. I do not see any value in lambasting others regarding what ever aspects of ham radio I like vs what they like.

Why not stop all the pontificating and just simply enjoy what ever floats your boat, life is much to short!

Doug
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
This might be garbage to some might be interesting to others and there might be some who find iot worth reading as posted here many times. So enjoy the radio while others enjoy the reading here.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N9XCR on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N9KG wrote "We are rapidly losing the ability to even manufacture anything in this country."

That's because of corporate greed.

N9XCR
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N9XCR on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Three topics guaranteed to start an argument:
1. Politics
2. Regligion
3. Amateur Radio
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W8RPE on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Yawn....
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N4RLL on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Know code!!!

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W3WN on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The Amateur Radio Service is NOT a hobby.

See Part 97. No use of the word "hobby" anywhere in there. 97.1 spells it all out pretty clearly.

Now... most or pretty much all of us participate in the Amateur Service as a hobby, a past time, an alternative activity, whatever. But that is how we use our time. That is not the purpose of the Service itself.

 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KB9RQZ on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
no the hobby is not being promoted correctly and your efforts at "promoting" it have been part nearly and maybe yet) in the dath neel of Ham radio

the CW requitreemtnis dead and we will see elvis back amoug the living before it

face that fact and move on please for he sake of the hobby
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W4VR on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"This is why bands such as 15 and 10 meters are pretty much dead. Pretty soon, we'll lose more frequencies to business interests and be down to one or two "citizen's bands.""
-----------------------------------------------------
Daniel: You may have a point about hams losing interest in the hobby, but the main reason 15 and 10 meters are dead is because there is little propagation on those bands in this phase of the solar cycle. Once the sun spot numbers are on the increase you'll hear more activity on those bands, including 12 meters.

As for losing spectrum to business interests, you are not far off base on that one....Here's a quote from governmentexecutive.com,
"the Navy wants to use HF bands - underutilized since the demise of Morse code - to support the broadcast of data over new IP-based services at far less cost than sending data by satellite."

...I don't think the Navy is focusing on the amateur bands just yet, but you never know what could happen in the future if ham activity continues to dwindle in the HF bands.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KG6WLS on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
>RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby' Reply
by N6HPX on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
This might be garbage to some might be interesting to others and there might be some who find iot worth reading as posted here many times.<

::Yeah, if they can only read it.

>So enjoy the radio<

::We/I will indeed.

>while others enjoy the reading here.<

::Enjoy?? Huh?? It's still the same "beat a dead horse" / "sour milk" garbage that has been posted here many times again and again. Hey, whatever floats your boat. We understand. Enjoy the good reading (yawn).

Boy, I'd wish more technical articles were posted here.

73
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W7ETA on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
eHam.

Shame on you, for publishing such dreck!

"This is why (techs don't have access to 160-12 meters) bands such as 15 and 10 meters are pretty much dead."

"Pretty soon, we'll lose more frequencies to business interests and be down to one or two "citizen's bands."
(because Tech don't have full access to all HF bands)




 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N0MASP6 on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Many don't really care about the cw requirement in that they probably figure that to really get involved in that mode, you have to gain and Extra license anyway. Why you ask? Listen on 20 and 40 and you will find the vast majority of dx is below the Advanced/General section of the band. To top that off, most dx doesn't venture above the .025 frequency to allow Advanced/General holders to work them. If most of the dx is out of reach for the majority of hams as far as the cw mode, why bother.
Solution: of course, everyone could get an Extra class license but to make the mode of cw more appealing to that majority of hams that operate, why not have dx work ABOVE the magical .025 and offer everyone an opportunity to enjoy dx and cw to the extent that would be "right" for the hobby.
L
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by ICR71A on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
You know, this topic is a lot like a bad lunch at the local greasy spoon. It keeps coming back up, and we keep coming back for more again and again.

Any excuse to get the code argument going again seems to be the rule. Bravo Sierra. The requirement is gone, it's not coming back, so get over it. Quite a few ham operators are as stupid as they ever were--folks have been memorizing the question pool en masse since Dick Bash published "The Final Exam" in 1980. Dit Dah imparts no technical knowledge through osmosis.

The cluelessness of K3DRQ really becomes clear by the third paragraph, where he irrevocably shows us that he has no idea of what he is talking about, and then starts on a roll throughout his diatribe from there. This like many of the drivel pieces that appear under the rubric of "articles" here on eHam are nothing more than opinion pieces from those exercising their troll skills.

Are these "articles" allowed so that folks can make an ass out of themselves, get lots of hackles raised--merely to drive up the page count so that the ops of this site can claim increased traffic to advertisers? Must be, for certainly posts like Danny's are not a service to the hobby.

N4PRT
(did I leave 73 off? gee, wonder why...)

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA4DOU on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"it is still technically the second most efficient mode next to PSK31"

In theory perhaps but in actual practice in the real world, PSK31 does not achieve its advantage over cw because of bandwidth.

 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KC9MAV on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The great thing about this hobby is that there are modes for everyone. Me CW, SSB, And, PSK31.
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K9RQ on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Ironic that you have posted this topic at this time as I have been thinking about this very thing the past several days as it relates to on-air activity in our area. I'm a ham of almost 40 years and have noticed a gradual, but steady decline in on-air activity by our club members as the old-timers fade away and the newer membership skews younger. Most of the members these day rarely get on the air if it doesn't involve a Skywarn event (severe weather, etc.) walk-a-thon or other such public service activities, and RACES nets. Most are not really technically inclined, and see ham radio as a utility for the above mentioned activities. This isn't an indictment of their view of ham radio, just an observation.

I do think that dropping the CW requirement, though, has nothing to do with it and might be a bit of a stretch.
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N0AH on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
POOR Propagation people- simple answer to a lot bull on this thread-

)-:
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W8JJI on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Yes , the way this hobby is perceived is not very appealing to the "younger crowd" and badly needs a facelift .

An advertizing campaighn by the ARRL to place some advertisements in magazines that are popular with the younger population. No , I do not mean Popular Mechanichs but something more "hip".

The advertisements should show young folks having fun while using ham gear, not some overly serious "nerd" forever waiting to help in a disaster. Lets leave disasters to the professionals and show that this HOBBY is FUN and inviting!
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Just because u dont like it Mike doesn't mean others feel the same way..its not the same old dead horse as you mentioned. Its one man's opinion which he had the right to voice and others had the right to respond.

My ship is not a boat its a ship and floats very well in real seas..

Every one here has a right to voice there comments on what they read and I agree it would be nice to see more technicial stuff but this is one that is not and of personal opinion, the same as those who voiced there's in a McDonalds or some other spot<i dont eat fast foods only asian foods>.

73's and happy hunting
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W0PV on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I wish somebody more patient with programming then me would write what I call a "CW-to-SMS gateway robot".

This would be an amateur radio software application for a PC that would interface an HF or VHF/UHF base transceiver, receive short commands, addresses and messages over-the-air in Morse code (CW or MCW) and then send and receive SMS (text messages) or abbreviated emails via the Internet.

I envision this to function similar to but at a far minimal subset of the richer and more complex systems like WinLink already available for larger email messages and files. However, the Morse-SMS gateway robot system would NOT require a PC or keyboard at the remote end; even just a lowly hand key would suffice.

It's already been dramatically established that CW (Morse code) can be faster to send and receive then cell phone keypad texting, has better S/N ratio then voice, and if such a gateway system were available, could provide a useful connection into the more complex telecommunications data networks from primitive, remote, or emergency situations.

Many times I have been out in a remote area, on the sea, or otherwise out of range of cell networks, but wanting to let somebody know my status, or ask a simple question. Being able to send and receive short messages into the Internet via an ultra-simple and cheap CW keyed QRP or mobile rig, or tone keying into a HT, and connecting via such a "Text Node Robot", could be of great benefit.

AND it would be another good functional reason (as opposed to just historic curiosity and entertainment) for new people to learn Morse code well!
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W8JAS on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Yup ARRL, our government and the rest of the world. Good reason to drop your membership - NOT!

I'm starting to think too many hams have taken in too much lead from solder or whatever and it has damaged their brains beyond repair.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KG6WLS on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Yeah, Larry...whatever. Sore wa taihen desu ne.

Dommo arigato & Sayonara!!

73
 
The Novice License  
by N2EY on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
K8YZK writes:

"I know that in 1966 the Novice was one year, move up or out policy. Worked hard to get the code and theory up before the year was done.
Now the Novice did change to 2yrs non-renewable, then to renewable, but don't remember exactly when that happened."

Quick history of the Novice license:

The Novice class license was created as part of the restructuring of 1951 which also created the Technician and Extra licenses, and renamed the old A, B and C class licenses.

The 1951 Novice was a one-year, one-time license (you could only have one, and only if you'd never had any class of amateur license before). 5 wpm code sending and receiving, and a multiple choice written test of 20-25 questions. Privs were 75 watts input, crystal controlled, on small parts of the 80, 11 and 2 meter bands (yes, 11 was ham band then). Novices could do 'phone on 2 meters. Tests given at FCC offices and by mail if the person was a shut-in or lived more than a certain distance from an FCC exam point. In 1954 FCC made all Novice exams by mail regardless of distance.

In the first couple of years 40 and 15 meter Novice subbands were added, and the 11 meter subband deleted.

The idea was that the Novice wasn't meant to be a permanent license. IOW, hams were expected to achieve a much higher level than the Novice required. The Novice would let people get a taste of ham radio and learn by doing.

Before 1951, all US hams had to start out with the equivalent of the General license: 13 wpm code, sending and receiving, and a written exam of about 50 questions that included drawing diagrams, solving problems and showing how the answer was obtained, writing short essays and some multiple choice.

In 1967, the Novice license term was extended to 2 years. This was at the same time the old Advanced was reopened.

From 1972 to 1976 or so, the Novice went through several changes. First, the one-time rule was changed to "hasn't had an amateur license for at least 1 year". So if someone couldn't upgrade, they could wait a year and get another Novice license.

That only lasted a short time before the 1 year wait was eliminated, so that a Novice who saw the end of the license term coming but wasn't ready to upgrade could just take the Novice test again and get another two years.

Finally (about 1975) the Novice became 5 year renewable just like all the other license classes.

This was about the time the 75 watt power limit was raised and the crystal control requirement eliminated.

The reason for all these 1967-1975 changes was the perception that we were losing too many new hams - that a year, or even two, wasn't enough time for everyone.

IMHO, the Novice had some good and bad features.

The limited privileges created a whole "industry" of kits and construction articles, and focused new hams on a few parts of a few bands. Many Novices built their own stations, or parts of them, because the limited privileges meant that even a simple rig was about as good as anyone else had.

However, the Novice subbands were poorly chosen. They were not harmonically related, so different crystals were needed for each band. The 40 meter Novice segment was full of foreign SWBC at night, too.

Worst of all was the 5 wpm exam. I think the folks who dreamed that up were well meaning, but it may have created more problems than it solved. Learning the code at very slow speeds can result in bad habits that are hard to break when you try to speed up. Enlightened training methods start the newcomer with the characters sent at 15-20 wpm but with exaggerated spaces between them, to allow the student time to decide and write. Then the spacing is gradually reduced to standard. Bad habits like 'counting dits' can't get started that way.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(one of the first two-year Novices, vintage 1967)




 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by RADIOGUYR2 on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I still can't understand why the ARRL hasn't sued the FEDS. After all now that we have no code, isn't the class of licenses subject to discriminatory bias and predigious. The offensive nature of discriminating against a class of license if not allowed by federal standards if not for safety and health.

Handicapped people who can't remember or are physically challenged (like most no code whining wanabees)should rise up and petitiion the FCC and ARRL to abolish the class requirement for ham radio licenses. (all for one and one size fits all)

As one puts it, " its down right discriminitory that I can't get on and be up where I want to be in the band with the others. The government has made a glass ceiling that we are under while they let others show their bottoms to us walking above it." "Its just plain not right that just because I can't remember the test questions answers like they did that I should be restricted and committed to a lower class of the hams"

And why should them tweeters (cw) people be given their own section of the band. It should be open and free for all to use and enjoy. None of this hear class seperation. I pay my taxes too so I should be able to go where ever I want too and do what ever I want too without the government telling me I can't. If we can have people come to this country and tell us they find our lifestyle offensive, Our government says we can't discriminate, then why is the same government discriminating against we allsen by telling me I have to get more class? Sounds discriminating to me. All one has to do is go to the US constitution and bill of rights to find that you can't discriminate or restrict without just cause. So where would it hurt the US government to allow one class of license for the ham bands? (something about the money?) Was that the ARRL whimpering and locking the doors?
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K5YF on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
CW<-->SMS Robot. Problem 1 would be reliably reading CW off the air.... although I have some ideas...
------------------------------
I wonder what would happen if we learned how to treat people who are already Hams with respect, and preserve our own dignity. We might even try that with everyone and not just Hams.
------------------------
Like Pete said above, there was a great test session Monday night. Larry Morgan, AG5Z, did a great job teaching them! Brad, Pete, and the other VE's did a great job too. People who dedicate time to bring people into the hobby are the "Real Hams" in my book. People who complain instead of helping are just sour pusses.

Debate and disagreement is good. Whining and browbeating is bad. Get it?

....I'm off to play radio now.

Best 73 and good health to everyone!

-Brandon
N5JYK
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KE5GK on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
HAM RADIO AIN'T NO HOBBY

IT'S A DISEASE !!!!!!!!!




 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K4JSR on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
HAM RADIO AIN'T NO HOBBY.
HAM RADIO AIN'T NO DISEASE.

HAM RADIO IS A MENTAL DISORDER!
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KF6VCI on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Some good points. Kids need their brains stimulated. sure, these days they can buy a cell phone. But how much better would it be if they soldered some kit, then got on the air with CW and havign this thrill! Red cheeks, a gleam in their eyes... They are using their brains! These kids may gain useful skills and most importantly, they stimulate their brains!
Young ones have incredible memories. Take Oil E27ZI she is a crack CW op while I'm struggling at 6.7 wpm with ARRL CDs at 39. ** There was a film on Channel 5 in the UK about the brain. They looked at kids who played instruments. ** IMHO, ham radio and photography plus darkroom technique should be taught at schools (optional activity, of course). Q: why is it that so many astronauts are hams? They have this i n t e r e s t and the "can do" mentality of hams. Hams try to fix things, try to work out issues and think about science in a practical way.
Take DL, they limit the novice's power to 5 Watts EIRP. Instead, they should have let some kid build a directional antenna with high gain! So he can use the 5 W output on some 20 dbi gain antenna he built!
Resumee: ham radio is more than fun or just useful in times of desaster. When taught to kids, they are shown a new world which they can influence while all the others are just consuming packaged things and amusing themselves to (brain) death.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W7ETA on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Geeeze eHam!

Why on earth would you publish this bizarrrreo statement--train of thought!?

"If we are serious about continuing the hobby during the next century and beyond, we need to market it as the "fun" that it is.....Otherwise, why not just use the Internet or a cell phone?"

Can it be that looks and sounds fine to you?

If this was in a Monty Python episode of "Spot the Loony", it would be fine.

 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6YE on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Dan,

You wrote quite a thought provoking article. Way to go!

The cycle seems to be on the way up. I worked the CQWWDX in October and 10/15 meters were quite hot.

IMHO, ham radio is what one makes of it. SSB, CW, AM, PSK31, RTTY, SLOW SCAN, IRLP, etc offer something for just about everybody in the hobby.

Enjoy whatever mode(s) you like while you are still on this side of the dirt.

Semper Fi,

Tommy - K6YE
DX IS
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6KYS on November 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
>>>>by W4FFM on November 6, 2007
The assertion that amateur radio is no help in emergencies is not supported by the facts. This is a disturbing trend I've been seeing in the forums, the condemnation of emergency communications in amateur radio.<<<<


Carl,

I don't think many would dispute with most of what you're written. True, a vital component of amateur radio remaining vibrant is the emergency communications component of our hobby. It's what's kept us so nicely allocated in bandspace over the decades.

What is happening now though, I think because our numbers have swelled so much, is that a growing number of hams are becoming increasingly intollerant of the idiosyncratic and gross among us. A large number seem to gravitate toward RACES for some reason. I was really glad to read that you would arrest anyone with a cop wannabe vehicle. I've seen some indescribably strange people in the REACT/RACES world.....many of whom feel empowered with some kind of official title or role. I've even seen these morons wear some very official-looking uniforms.

It's no secret that this hobby has always attracted a large number of the fringe elements of our society. I've never really understood why....many have explained it by saying that far-right (on the Bell curve) intelligence breeds this...who knows? What I can relate is that I've been to many ham gatherings in Europe and the far east, and without question....the morbidly obese, unhygienic, and idiosyncratic really come out in full force in the United States. It's REALLY embarassing at an international event like Dayton. Carl, people get tired of seeing these people represent the same hobby that they enjoy. RACES, for some reason has become a magnet of many of these whack jobs.

It's not a slam on emergency communications folks.....they do great work and many are selfless. It's instead, and probably for the first time, a growing demand for normalcy in our ranks.

Great post, Carl

Best,
Brad
N6KYS
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W9DML on November 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Please look very carefully at the order of Basis and Principals, with respect to paragraph (a).

As a young 23yr old, you may not be familiar with how the government does things (I know that at age 67 I don't fully understand everything they do as well) but I do know the order things are listed in are from most important (relevant) to least important.

Please read paragraph (a) several times till you get it.

You might also be interested in reading about the homeland security expectations concerning our "hobby".

BTW, the word HOBBY doesn't appear in the following 97.1 section, however the words service, enhance, and art do appear.

I agree with most of what you say, but hope you can get your priorities changed around a bit.

'73

daVe





47 CFR Ch. I (10198 Edition)
Subpart AGeneral Provisions

§97.1 Basis and purpose.
The rules and regulations in this part
are designed to provide an amateur
radio service having a fundamental
purpose as expressed in the following
principles:

(a) Recognition and enhancement of
the value of the amateur service to the
public as a voluntary noncommercial
communication service, particularly
with respect to providing emergency
communications.

(b) Continuation and extension of the
amateurs proven ability to contribute
to the advancement of the radio art.

(c) Encouragement and improvement
of the amateur service through rules
which provide for advancing skills in
both the communication and technical
phases of the art.

(d) Expansion of the existing res-
ervoir within the amateur radio service
of trained operators, technicians, and
electronics experts.

(e) Continuation and extension of the
amateurs unique ability to enhance
international goodwill.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W4FFM on November 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Brad;

There's an EC handbook put out by the League that even warns against "wannabes"... one problem with fringe-types is that they draw the most attention, so that 1% of the population looks like they represent 50% (it happens universally here in the world of unregulated internet forums... not just eHam or QRZ).

In this area such folks are marginalized, but in certain areas they're empowered and supported, and then that 1% of **the areas** becomes "50%". So it gets worse.

-Carl
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WI7B on November 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

"As a young 23yr old, you may not be familiar with how the government does things (I know that at age 67 I don't fully understand everything they do as well) but I do know the order things are listed in are from most important (relevant) to least important." --W9DML


That's complete nonsense W9DML! The subsection (a)-(e) of CFR 47 Sec. 97.1 are no different than the subsections of any other part in the CFR 47.

For example, Sec. 97.11:


Sec. 97.11 Stations aboard ships or aircraft.


(a) The installation and operation of an amateur station on a ship or aircraft must be approved by the master of the ship or pilot in command of the aircraft.

(b) The station must be separate from and independent of all other radio apparatus installed on the ship or aircraft, except a common antenna may be shared with a voluntary ship radio installation. The station's transmissions must not cause interference to any other apparatus installed on the ship or aircraft.

(c) The station must not constitute a hazard to the safety of life or property. For a station aboard an aircraft, the apparatus shall not be operated while the aircraft is operating under Instrument Flight Rules, as defined by the FAA, unless the station has been found to comply with all applicable FAA Rules.

From YOUR ARGUMENT, subsection (c) is the LEAST IMPORTANT. We'll, I think the vast majority of hams recognize that avoiding hazards to life and property is of paramount importance...more important than perhaps (b), a station separated from other radio apparatus.

Keep up the critical work, Brad.

73,

---* Ken
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K2MMO on November 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Not everyone is afforded the luxury of owning a rig or having a yard to put up an antenna.....so Echo link works fine true it is through the internet but you can work many repeaters around the world.....its a hobby.....

If it unfortunate you are so bitter about the hobby(after 10 years) and the people who are joining the ranks..I have been a "ham" for 19 years (still a noobie) and came up through the ranks...novice tech and general........and I love CW and use it every chance I get in fact it the mode I use mostly.....however I do not slight operators who don't like CW.....or who took a CW test for CW......SO WHAT........stop worrying about what the hobby does not have and start enjoying it for what it is.....fun.....

Get on the air and use CW so we can save the CW bands......
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K5YF on November 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Just in case someone thinks WI7B is correct, which he isn't, I'll weigh in on this point too...

In the world of government rules and regulations, which are of necessity considered to be lawful until proven otherwise(let us leave that argument for some other forum), think of the paragraph order as a stepwise checklist.

In 97.11 you must FIRST have permission to operate, because without permission the other rules are moot.

In 97.1 paragraph (a) the Amateur Service is FIRST a civil emergency communications service.

We may think of it as our hobby, but it is really a service.

N5JYK
Brandon
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K4JSR on November 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
W7ETA sed, "If this was in a Monty Python episode of "Spot the Loony", it would be fine."

THIS LOONEY IS DEAD!!!


Nobody expects the eHam inquisition!!!
Our main weapon is surprise...
Surprise and inane postings...
errr...Our two main weapons are surprise, inane postings and fanatical allegiance to ad hominem attacks.
Uuuuunh... Our three main weapons are surprise, inane postings, fanatical allegiance to ad hominem attacks
and duplicate postings!

On and on and on ad nauseum.

See what you started ETA? ;-)



 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
K4JSR writes:

>THIS LOONEY IS DEAD!!!

He's feeling better...

>Nobody expects the eHam inquisition!!!
>Our main weapon is surprise...

No it isn't.

>Surprise and inane postings...

Dinsdale!

>errr...Our two main weapons are surprise, inane >postings and fanatical allegiance to ad hominem >attacks.

Always look on the bright side of life.

>Uuuuunh... Our three main weapons are surprise, inane >postings, fanatical allegiance to ad hominem attacks
>and duplicate postings!

Luxury. *WE* would have been *GLAD* to have been subjected only to surprise, inane postings, fanatical allegiance to ad hominem attacks and duplicate postings!

Is this the right thread for an argument?

73 de Jim (aka Bruce) N2EY

Odd that penguin being on top of the amateur radio transceiver, isn't it?
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Your right about the permit to operaste on board a ship which is what I mentioned several times on other groups, and have only 2 times been questioned about the radios I do carry..I have asked in the past about using my HF rig and sometimes HT but have been turned down everytime. Only once approved but my HF gear was overseas in my station.

Good luck and happy hunting
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W8KQE on November 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Leave your copy of 'CQ' or 'QST' at your doctor's office waiting room or your barber's once you're done reading it! That's 'free marketing'!
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WI7B on November 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

So N5JYK, you are saying that Sec. 97.11 (c) is the LEAST IMPORTANT?

You are wrong OM. It is principally important over Sec. 97.11 (b).

The ordering the the subsections is not an order of importance in CFR 47.

Who taught you this garbage?

73,

---* Ken
------------------------------------

"Just in case someone thinks WI7B is correct, which he isn't, I'll weigh in on this point too...



In the world of government rules and regulations, which are of necessity considered to be lawful until proven otherwise(let us leave that argument for some other forum), think of the paragraph order as a stepwise checklist.

In 97.11 you must FIRST have permission to operate, because without permission the other rules are moot.

In 97.1 paragraph (a) the Amateur Service is FIRST a civil emergency communications service.

We may think of it as our hobby, but it is really a service.

N5JYK
Brandon"
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WI7B on November 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

So N5JYK, you are saying that Sec. 97.11 (c) is the LEAST IMPORTANT?

You are wrong OM. It is principally important over Sec. 97.11 (b).

The ordering the the subsections is not an order of importance in CFR 47.

Who taught you this garbage?

73,

---* Ken
------------------------------------

"Just in case someone thinks WI7B is correct, which he isn't, I'll weigh in on this point too...



In the world of government rules and regulations, which are of necessity considered to be lawful until proven otherwise(let us leave that argument for some other forum), think of the paragraph order as a stepwise checklist.

In 97.11 you must FIRST have permission to operate, because without permission the other rules are moot.

In 97.1 paragraph (a) the Amateur Service is FIRST a civil emergency communications service.

We may think of it as our hobby, but it is really a service.

N5JYK
Brandon"
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WI7B on November 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Well, back to this article and the question of CW. By the fallacious argument of: (a) equals MOST important and (b) equals LEAST important, it would seem that the FCC got rid of the MOST important element in Sec. 97.503..


"Sec. 97.503 Element standards.

(a) A telegraphy examination must be sufficient to prove that the examinee has the ability to send correctly by hand and to receive correctly by ear texts in the international Morse code at not less than the prescribed speed, using all the letters of the alphabet, numerals 0-9, period, comma, question mark, slant mark, and prosigns AR, BT, and SK. Element 1: 5 words per minute

(b) A written examination must be such as to prove that the examinee possesses the operational and technical qualifications required to perform properly the duties of an amateur service licensee. Each written examination must be comprised of a question set as follows:..."

73.

---* Ken

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K4JSR on November 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Jim asked, "Is this the right thread for an argument?"

No sir. This is the thread for abuse!

And pining for the Fjords, Chevies, Plymouths...

Back to "just resting".
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K4JSR on November 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I couldn't rest...
Do you folks know who the first CW operator was?

It was George Washington...

When asked by his father, "who chopped down my cherry tree?"

George replied, "I cannot tell a lie. I DIDIT DAHDAH!"

And now for something cpmpletely different...
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K5YF on November 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Ken,

Perhaps it would be best for you to consult with an attorney to better understand the taxonomy and schema these rules are written within.

It was my mistake to post information that might be beyond the scope of this thread. I most humbly apologize for that.

However, I do feel it is important for licensed Amateur Radio Service Operators to keep themselves informed of the rules and regulations that govern how we operate our stations. And, while there may be considerable leeway in how the rules are enforced, there should not be in how we operate our stations.

Best 73
-Brandon
N5JYK
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W7ETA on November 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"ANNOUNCER: The BBC would like to apologise for the next announcement.

GUMBYS: Hello, and welcome to the show. Without more ado, the first item is a sketch about architects called 'The Architects Sketch'. 'The Architects Sketch'. 'The Architects Sketch'! 'The Architects Sketch'! Up there! Up there! Up there! Up there! The architects!.."

Even the Gumbys had to deal with split--Up! UP! UP! UP There!




 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by AF6BV on November 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
>People used to build things. Kids built mopeds and >go karts; they worked on engines and built forts in >the woods. That's changed now. The primary time >occupation is video games and similar.

I think you really nailed the crux of the problem.

The problem isn't from dropping (or keeping) CW or that the written tests are too easy (or too hard) -- although surely some of the nasty behavior from these debates drive away prospective hams who wonder why they'd want to talk to people who get so angry about these things...

The problem is -- hams get into radio today because they're interested in radio. Got that?

The interest may be technical, social, or both, but the point is it's a fraternity (and sorority, I suppose :) of people who by and large, enjoy communicating by radio, by whatever modes and frequencies and in whatever capacity appeals to them.

Now, how do you get people interested in a technical topic, like radio, or space travel, or becoming an architect of skyscrapers, or a great scientist?

You need a culture that rewards experimentation, asking questions, learning, and makes science sexy and interesting. In the 60's and 70's, it was the space program. What national initiative, today, calls kids to experiment and build, to create things in order to learn about them, and take them apart to understand how they work?

I think as long as we are an appliance-user culture that thinks the answer to the question "how does a car work?" is, you insert and turn the key, control speed with the accelerator and brake, and turn with the steering wheel, then we're toast as a technological leader, perhaps for generations.

I would go so far as to say that a lack of hands-on education in the elementary school for sciences is as much to blame for the decline of amateur radio as the availability of new technology to communicate.

Remember: people ride horses, generations after horseback travel was obsolete. And people will talk on ham radio and use HF long after long distance becomes virtually free, and for many of the same reasons.

The problem is to get more people interested in radio. EMC is one way to do this, so perhaps it's not all bad.

Just my two millibucks worth.

-- ross
AF6BV

 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KI5BC on November 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
With much thanks to W7ECA.org:

The Radio Amateur is:

Considerate...never knowingly uses the air in such a way to lesson the
pleasure of others.

Loyal...offers loyalty, encouragement and support to their fellow radio
amateurs, their local radio club, and to the American Radio Relay League,
through which Amateur Radio is represented.

Progressive...with knowledge abreast of science. It is well-built and
efficient. Operating practice is above reproach.

Friendly...slow and patient sending when requested, friendly advice and
counsel to the beginner, kindly assistance, cooperation and consideration
for the interests of others. These are marks of the amateur spirit.

Balanced...radio is their hobby. They never allow it to interfere with any of
the duties they owe to their home, job, church, school, or community.

Patriotic...their knowledge and their station are always ready for the
service of his country and their community.

Who wrote the Amateur's Creed?
The Amateur Creed was composed in 1928 by Paul M. Segal - then 9EEA in Denver, and General Counsel of the ARRL. The creed has been updated a few times over the intervening years, to update the text and put it into contemporary terms. The Amateur's Creed appears in a number of ARRL publications such as the Handbook, and is just as valid today as it has been for nearly 70 years.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by AG4RQ on November 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Can anyone post the original Amateur's Creed as it was originally written in 1928, unedited and unmodified? I fail to be able to find it on the Web. Thanks.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Who wrote the Amateur's Creed?"

It's "The Amateur's Code". Not Creed.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"....you have to know these things when you're King, you see...."
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N4BWV on November 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
You are not a real ham unless you passed the 13 WPM code element.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by AC2Q on November 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
No One who has actually READ part 97 could POSSIBLY come to the conclusion that Amateur Radio is "just a hobby"

There is no FORCED/REQUIRED service requirement, but it is a service.

Certainly it is fun, and I am glad to see young folk (I am 45) involved in it. I was introduced to Amateur Radio in 1971 at the age of 9 through the gift of a Hallicrafters S-40 receiver. This was in a time when I lived in the Mountains of Virginia, our nearest neighbor was 4 miles away, and we revieved 2 (TWO) TV channels on out Black and White Dumont television.

I doubt that someone in your age group can fully appreciate the absolute WONDER that listening to the BBC, Radio Moscow, Radio Nederland (Holland), Radio Deutsche Wella (Germany) represented in that context.

With all the electronic distractions present today I consider it a wondrous thing that people still enjoy "the magic of signals through the ether"

All that aside, the original idea was to create and foster a ready pool of technically savvy people who could help if needed. The vast majority were then, and still are, "appliance operators", although the meaning of that definition has changed over the years, you only have to read back articles in QST regarding someone building something that didn't work, and running to a local ham for assistance, to realize that, but the bottom line is that the absolute vast majority of Amateur Radio Operators are STILL more technically savvy than the general public, which was the original idea.

from the FCC Homeland Security pages:

http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/emergency/amateur.html

The amateur radio service is for licensed individuals interested in self-training, communication with other amateur stations, and technical investigations. It is for persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary or commercial interest.

snip snip

During emergencies, amateur radio operators may transmit messages to other amateur stations, subject to the privileges authorized for the class of license the amateur station control operator holds. No special permissions from the FCC are required for amateur stations to make these transmissions. Some amateur radio operators coordinate their communications through groups referred to as "networks" or "nets."
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by AC2Q on November 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
KB2DHG writes:
This hobby will surly die for several reasons. first and foremost is the expence of these new rigs. I think it is outragious the cost of these transceivers and all these bells and whitles are NOT necessary. I have been working the world with my old basic rigs.

And the cost of your "Old Basic Rig" was MUCH HIGHER than comparable today,while I could only find an inflation calculator that goes to 2006, consider the following for example:

EF Johnson Adventurer (Barebones CW only TRANSMITTER only)

Frequency range: 10-80 m
Mode: CW
RF Power output: 30 W
Voltage: Mains
Current drain: ?
Impedance: ? ohms
Dimensions (W*H*D): ? mm
Weight: ? Kg
Manufactured: USA, 196x-196x
Other: XTAL or external VFO
New price 1961: $54.95

$55.00 in 1965 had about the same buying power as $349.57 in 2006.

EF Johnson Viking Ranger (AM/CW TRANSMITTER ONLY)

Frequency range: 10-160 m
Mode: AM/CW
RF Power output: 40 W
Voltage: Mains
Current drain: ?
Impedance: 50-500 ohms
Dimensions (W*H*D): ? mm
Weight: ? Kg
Manufactured: USA, 196x-196x
Other: XTAL and VFO
New price 1961: $329.50

$329.00 in 1961 had about the same buying power as $2,189.29 in 2006

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
K8FZN writes:

"the cost of your "Old Basic Rig" was MUCH HIGHER than comparable today"

That depends on what comparisons are made. If you're
talking about new manufactured ham gear, amateur
radio used to be a very expensive thing!

"EF Johnson Adventurer (Barebones CW only TRANSMITTER only)

Frequency range: 10-80 m"

Not including 30, 17 or 12 meters.

"Mode: CW
RF Power output: 30 W
Voltage: Mains
Current drain: ?"

About 1 A at 120 volts key down

"Impedance: ? ohms"

50-1000 ohms, would match pretty high SWR without a tuner

"Dimensions (W*H*D): ? mm
Weight: ? Kg"

About a ten-inch cube, weighed about 20 pounds

"Manufactured: USA, 196x-196x"

Actually about 1957-1965 or so.

"Other: XTAL or external VFO"

Both of which cost extra. Novices had to
use xtals in those days, too.

"New price 1961: $54.95"

Yup. And it was a *KIT* - you had to put it together!

"$55.00 in 1965 had about the same buying power as $349.57 in 2006."

The Adventurer was considered a beginner's transmitter,
meant for the Novice. It was a good transmitter for its time and price class. Properly restored and operated, it is still a good rig.

Things like xtals and/or VFO, key, and a transmit-receive system were not part of the package, either.
Plus you needed a receiver, which almost always cost
as much or more than the transmitter. If a ham bought an Adventurer and a $100 receiver, that investment equates to about $1000 today.

But there were some big differences back then.

The first was that military surplus radios and worn-out TV sets, AM BC radios, phonographs and other old electonincs were common and inexpensive, if not free. Homebrewing and surplus conversion put a lot of new hams on the air for relatively little money. For example, a BC-454 "Command Set" receiver (tuning range 3-6 Mc) could be had for $5-10, and for a few dollars more plus a junked BC set for parts could be converted to ham use. An old TV set could supply most of the parts for a simple transmitter. Things like headphones and straight keys were pretty inexpensive if you got basic or surplus ones.

Used gear was plentiful too, because most hams had to sell one rig to buy another.

So a ham with some ingenuity could get on the air for well under $50 back then. Of course s/he would be limited to one mode and one or two bands, but it was a start.

Also important was that the expenditures could be made a little at a time. Most hams back then started out with just a receiver, using it to learn the code and listen to other hams while studying for the exams and saving up for a transmitter once the license was earned. Improvements were often made incrementally - the receiver replaced by a better one, the transmitter rebuilt for more power, VFO added when the General license was earned, etc. While the total cost could be quite impressive when adjusted for inflation, spending a little here and a little there has a different impact than spending it all at once.

If you're willing to stick with the basics, do some scrounging and homebrewing, and don't insist on new gear, amateur radio can be done quite inexpensively today.

73 de Jim, N2EY



 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W9DML on November 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Thanks Ken, for making my point for me.


As I said, the section items are listed in order of importance (use precedence if it makes it easier for you to understand what I'm trying to say).

If the Captain disallows operations on his/her vessel
OBVIOUSLY the end of discussion.


"(a) The installation and operation of an amateur station on a ship or aircraft must be approved by the master of the ship or pilot in command of the aircraft."


However, if the Captain permits operations on his/her vessel, then:

"(b) The station must be separate from and independent of all other radio apparatus installed on the ship or aircraft, except a common antenna may be shared with a voluntary ship radio installation. The station's transmissions must not cause interference to any other apparatus installed on the ship or aircraft."

If paragraph (b) is not complied with, (or the station does not meet the requirements listed)
there is no need for paragraph (c)

If paragraph (b) is complied with then:

"(c) The station must not constitute a hazard to the safety of life or property. For a station aboard an aircraft, the apparatus shall not be operated while the aircraft is operating under Instrument Flight Rules, as defined by the FAA, unless the station has been found to comply with all applicable FAA Rules."

Then (c) becomes very very important!



Ken's words "From YOUR ARGUMENT, subsection (c) is the LEAST IMPORTANT. We'll, I think the vast majority of hams recognize that avoiding hazards to life and property is of paramount importance...more important than perhaps (b), a station separated from other radio apparatus."


No argument, just using some decision logic tables.

First Permission to install.
Second Proper installation.
Third Proper operation.


Most reasonable people (not just a vast majority of hams only) would agree that if the Captain allows the installation and the installation is done properly, then not operating at mission critical times would be vary prudent!

BTW why do you think it took so long for approval to operate amateur equipment on the STS and ISS vehicles?

See next post (if required) for the "rest of the story" with apologies to Paul Harvey %^)

73

daVe







 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W9DML on November 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Ken,


Your 97.503 (circa 1998) is a bit different from the current one. (See below your version)



"Sec. 97.503 Element standards.

(a) A telegraphy examination must be sufficient to prove that the examinee has the ability to send correctly by hand and to receive correctly by ear texts in the international Morse code at not less than the prescribed speed, using all the letters of the alphabet, numerals 0-9, period, comma, question mark, slant mark, and prosigns AR, BT, and SK. Element 1: 5 words per minute

(b) A written examination must be such as to prove that the examinee possesses the operational and technical qualifications required to perform properly the duties of an amateur service licensee. Each written examination must be comprised of a question set as follows:..."


NEW 97.503
§97.503 Element standards.
A written examination must be such as to prove that the examinee possesses the operational and technical qualifications required to perform properly the duties of an amateur service licensee. Each written examination must be comprised of a question set as follows:

(a) Element 2: 35 questions concerning the privileges of a Technician Class operator license. The minimum passing score is 26 questions answered correctly.
(b) Element 3: 35 questions concerning the privileges of a General Class operator license. The minimum passing score is 26 questions answered correctly.

(c) Element 4: 50 questions concerning the privileges of an Amateur Extra Class operator license. The minimum passing score is 37 questions answered correctly.

Yeh, you probably would get yout tech then general then extra and in that order unless you do them in one sitting.

Still Trying I see. The FCC (and most of the rest of the amateur radio dropped the CW as a requirement and it was relegated to the status of "another mode of operation" where it should have been since the mid 40's as SSB became the preferred mode of operation for HF (military) communications. I won't get into that argument or even discuss it as it has been over cooked here and there is no winning side, just opinions. However, Ken, your analogy is about as valid as accusing you of being the radar repairman on the EXxon Valdez. HI-HI.

Please take a look at a current 97.503,
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/

the element 1 has been trashed... your argument/observation is not relevant.

73

daVe







 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N5XM on November 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
It never ceases to amaze me how many ways a hair can be split. In the last five years of my life (I'm now 54), one of the most important things I've learned is that more is to be learned from those with whom I disagree than from those with whom I agree. It's all a matter of perspective.

I love CW. I'm pushing 25K CW contacts in less than 10 years of banging contacts together, and I still have 12K phone contacts, so I'm not bigoted one way or the other. What I am is ACTIVE. During my life I've often felt I was born about 20 years too late. Is it my fault that I didn't become a Ham until '96? Is it my fault I could buy a ready-made rig and get on the air without building anything? I think not. I guarantee you that had I come up at that point in time, I could have been great at building things. I got my ticket to OPERATE and that's exactly what I do. You pick your poison, you know? I do my best to be the best Ham and the best operator I can be. I ain't perfect, and I know that all too well.

I think we forget to emphasize what brings us together. Instead, we point fingers at each other to deride those things that make us different. One attitude brings unity, the other dissention and disunity. It's patently obvious which attitude is best for Ham Radio.

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N4BWV:

"You are not a real ham unless you passed the 13 WPM code element."

Why not?

What about someone never passed the 13 wpm code test, but can do 40 wpm solid, sending and receiving?

It seems to me that the tests passed to get the license are just one part of what makes "a real ham".

Much more important is what the amateur does once
the license is earned.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W0LTL on November 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I find it interesting that every time someone disagrees witht he ARRL current direction, rather than campaigning or even speaking with their Directors or Asst Directors they leave the League! Interesting, since whether we like it or not the League is THE ONLY REPRESENTATION WE HAMS HAVE and they respond to the members that take the time to write, email, phone etc. Emailing your ARRL Director is really easy! Why don't you take your comments to the ARRL to be incorporated in the common good for all hams rather than taking the time to criticize on the air and on the email systems? If we hams think this hobby will exist for generations wihout political representation in Washington by the ARRL, we are really loosing it!
Now about CW. CW was a requirement when many thousands of hams earned their licenses. Those that did not wish to or were too lazy to address the code became CBers. No story about not being able to learn the code will impress me because when the Downs' syndrome kids years ago were in a code class they had no problem with it! (Wonderful by the way!) Now other forces prevailed upon the FCC (cia the League?) and whether we like it or not the consensus is we have a no code license structure as a result of an apparant demand by current hams, and so be it. They are learning though that CW is a lot of fun and very efficient on the HF bands, particularly at the lower power levels.

Ham radio is a hobby, but it exists only for one reason; its usefulness as an emergency communication system with skilled? operators for use in time of need We tend to forget that little criteria! Remember to include public service at least as a capability in your ham activities even if you choose not to actively paricipate on a regular basis. Ham radiio has evolved a lot over the years and will continue to do so as new technologies emerge and we hams will have to embrace it and use it in our daily "hobby" acitivities and as well as in our public service duties. Public service will always have to be at the forefront of our ham activities in order to justify continuing in our "hobby" side of our activities. I know that W0LTL must increase its station activities in the public service sector above what it is doing today! Just had to comment
73
Mike
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by PLANKEYE on November 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
PLANKEYE!


 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Had a shipmate years ago who was one of many elmers in this hobby and he mentioned that he was allowed to operate from the vessel. He had to go through not only the Captain but alos the Command and each one approved it.

I have alos carried radio's to my many ships and only once got confronted by the radio's which didnt come from the Captain but from a 3rd Mate on the Gangway, where he mentioned he might have to confiscate the radio in my bags. I mentioned that the radio by from what I heard could only be turned over to another Radio Ham and this was also told to me by Riley Hollingsworth that no one has the right to confiscate my radios.

The Captain scolded the 3rd officer and told him
he didnt have the authority to do this and in the mean time told me that the radio should remain in my possesion and stay in my locker. The only time it was ever used was ashore in Guam and Saipan.

I have sailed 31 yrs now and that was my first time I ever had a problem.

Larry,n6hpx/du1
maritime mobile Japan
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N4KC posted on November 6, 2007:

"Dan, let your membership lapse if you want, but don't do it because you think the ARRL helped eliminate the code requirement. Most of the world had done it long before the FCC did it...against the lobbying of the ARRL."

Hmmm...seems to me the ARRL was all for keeping the code test...at least for all but the 'experts' who have Extra class licenses. ARRL was in opposition to the IARU's position of getting rid of the ITU requirement before WRC-03. <shrug>
..................................................
N4KC: "If the ARRL is so wrong-headed in its methods to promote the hobby, what would you do differently? In addition to posting an article on eHam, did you contact your Section Manager and Division Director and tell them how misguided they are and offer the benefit of your expertise? Are you prepared to buy an ad, print up a brochure, provide 24-hour-a-day assistance to the press, or do any of the other things a big organization like the ARRL can and does do?"

ARRL has a membership of LESS than a quarter of all US amateur radio licensees. ARRL survives, pays its staff, keeps up the grounds, remodels its office building with or without any 'golden bricks', has a professional lobbying organization and a DC law firm on retainer...because of it being a PUBLISHER of a great number of books and assorted resell items. It doesn't do that just on membership fees. It couldn't possibly exist without either raising membership fees ten times current rates or having those printing presses keep on cranking out lots of softcover books and CDs.

Regardless of what so many think, the ARRL cozies up to its core membership: Old-timer hams who are tried and true morsemen. That core membership, by and large, wants to keep things the way it was when they were young, idealistic, and ate up all the fine-sounding words. It's rather apparent and has been so for over a half century. The problem is that the core membership is getting old...and remaining inflexible. They can't imagine appealing to the generations just coming of age. In fact, few of them tried appealing to the previous generation on that group's desires or interests. The core membership is insistent, subborn, and refusing to change with the obvious evolution of the state of the radio art. That is probably the reason ARRL membership hasn't increased any more than it has.

We, the public, INCLUDING ARRL members like myself, cannot easily find out how many members there are since one has to write the QST staff to get a Publisher's Sworn Statement that shows the numbers. Once we could find that out by just going to QST advertising sub-page via the Internet. That was changed before mid-2006. Why is that such a hidden bit of information? Even from members? Things like that makes the remaining 3/4 of all US licensees who aren't members wonder what's going on.

I've not heard or seen facts supporting the ARRL "providing any 24-hour-a-day assistance to the press." That membership organization isn't chartered around journalism. What ARRL does in print is to - rather overtly - PROMOTE ITSELF a great deal. I get my QST regularly. The sold ad space in that journal pays the entire cost of the staff, the printing, etc. The 'fullfillment service' fees from membership dues pays for the distribution and maintenance of mailing lists. One doesn't have to be a Hearst to count up ad space in QST for all the ads ARRL takes out to advertise itself...in its membership magazine! Just exactly WHO are they appealing to? Those that already bought into membership? We need reinforcement? Over-the-counter sales numbers (when Sworn Statements were still readily visible) accounted for the less than ten percent of total issues printed for any month.

Oh, yes, the publishing side of the ARRL must keep on promoting MORE SALES of its paper goods. That makes money for them. They ARE a business, firmly established in that for over a half century. What they do for some nebulous 'cause' of amateur radio is largely the PR aimed at keeping the membership they already have. That membership wants to retain code testing. Its so obvious in here that it could just as well be on billboards alongside the ubiquitous Wall Drug billboards across the country. ARRL still hasn't captured much of the three-quarters of US amateur radio licensees who are NOT members. If they are so noble, pure, and strong as they pretend to be, why hasn't the League membership increased in the last few decades? Hint: They seem to be paying more attention to its hidebound core membership of old-timers, most of them tried-and-true morsemen.

Don't nobody else crap a memorial brick over this. Just think about it. Maybe it will dawn on some others what the present REALITY is all about.

73, Len AF6AY [a League member, one who did vote in the latest Region 6 'election']

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N5JYK posted on November 8, 2007:

"In the world of government rules and regulations, which are of necessity considered to be lawful until proven otherwise(let us leave that argument for some other forum), think of the paragraph order as a stepwise checklist."

You've been admitted to your state's bar? [incredulous look]

If you look carefully at that Part of the entire Title 47 C.F.R. - other than seeing what you WANT to see - you will find most of the 'definitions' in the beginning as little more than political courtesies to some special interest groups.
..................

N5JYK: "In 97.1 paragraph (a) the Amateur Service is FIRST a civil emergency communications service."

Tsk. Others have tried that same ploy and were just as wrong as you. :-(
.................
N5JYK: "We may think of it as our hobby, but it is really a service."

As the FCC once wrote me (using real ink on real paper with real signature), "...the word 'service' is used in the regulatory sense referring to a type and kind of radio activity being defined, described in a particular Part."

If you look closely at the exact words in 97.1 you will find that the OPTION exists to use amateur radio as a VOLUNTARY effort to aid in an emergency. It is NOT mandatory.

If you look at Part 95 you will find the Citizens Band Radio SERVICE defined and described and the Radio Control Radio SERVICE as well. [capa are mine for emphasis] In other parts you will find Public Land Mobile Radio SERVICE and Aviation Radio SERVICE and Maritime Radio SERVICE and several more SERVICES.

Under PLMRS you will find Public Safety Radio SERVICES which are specifically for emergency communications, large or small, by police, fire departments, paramedics, which very definitely ARE a SERVICE whether or not they use radios.

73, Len AF6AY [once a voluntary enlistee in US Army SERVICE, a real one]
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EIK on November 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Hmmmm, no code... Personally I think it sucks and degrades our hobby. I got licensed back around 1983 (84?, I had to drive 90 miles into the heart of NY city and go to the FCC headquarters. No VE test back then. I pushed myself hard to learn code. I really, really REALLY wanted to be a ham and REALLY wanted to upgrade so I pushed myself and learned and increased my proficiency. I became inactive for about 9 years due to business obligations and got back active only a few years ago and was 'befuddled' by the apparent "dumbing down" of the hobby that I loved so much. To me, it seems that many people would rather exert 10 times the effort to get out of a requirement than actually complying with it. Learning CW at 5wpm should not be that big of a deal. Yeah ok...blow it back to me by saying something like "easy for me". No, guess what, it was NOT easy for me, but I did it. It was required and it was TRADITION and it was (what I thought) made me part of a special group of people that I idolized called HAM RADIO OPERATORS.
Just my two cents. Opinions welcome, flames deleted, LOL.

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY writes:

"Hmmm...seems to me the ARRL was all for keeping the code test"

Let's look at the record:

In 1998, FCC required 5 wpm code for Novice and Technician Plus, 13 wpm code for General and Advanced, and 20 wpm for Extra.

(of course with a medical waiver any class of license could have been had with just 5 wpm)

ARRL's 1998 proposal asked for 5 wpm code for General, 12 wpm code for Advanced and Extra. It also proposed that existing Novices and Tech pluses get a free upgrade to General.

In 2003, FCC required 5 wpm code for all license classes with HF/MF privileges.

In 2003, ARRL proposed dropping the code test for all but the Extra class.

Sure doesn't look like "ARRL was all for keeping the code test", Len.

AF6AY: "...at least for all but the 'experts' who have Extra class licenses."

That's just plain wrong, Len.

AF6AY: "ARRL was in opposition to the IARU's position of getting rid of the ITU requirement before WRC-03."

Not true. In early 2001, ARRL changed its policy about ITU-R 25.5 from "support keeping it" to "no opinion". Which meant no opposition to its deletion.

N4KC: "If the ARRL is so wrong-headed in its methods to promote the hobby, what would you do differently? In addition to posting an article on eHam, did you contact your Section Manager and Division Director and tell them how misguided they are and offer the benefit of your expertise? Are you prepared to buy an ad, print up a brochure, provide 24-hour-a-day assistance to the press, or do any of the other things a big organization like the ARRL can and does do?"

AF6AY: "ARRL has a membership of LESS than a quarter of all US amateur radio licensees. ARRL survives, pays its staff, keeps up the grounds, remodels its office building with or without any 'golden bricks', has a professional lobbying organization and a DC law firm on retainer...because of it being a PUBLISHER of a great number of books and assorted resell items. It doesn't do that just on membership fees. It couldn't possibly exist without either raising membership fees ten times current rates or having those printing presses keep on cranking out lots of softcover books and CDs."

How do you know for sure, Len?

AF6AY: "Regardless of what so many think, the ARRL cozies up to its core membership: Old-timer hams who are tried and true morsemen."

How? By repeatedly proposing to lower the code test requirements?

By repeatedly proposing to widen the HF 'phone subbands and narrow the CW/data subbands?

AF6AY: "That core membership, by and large, wants to keep things the way it was when they were young, idealistic, and ate up all the fine-sounding words. It's rather apparent and has been so for over a half century."

Give us some examples of how ARRL has done that.

AF6AY: "The problem is that the core membership is getting old...and remaining inflexible. They can't imagine appealing to the generations just coming of age. In fact, few of them tried appealing to the previous generation on that group's desires or interests."

But, Len, you're older than most of those you are talking about. You're more removed from "generations coming of age" than most of us, even though you're a brand-new ham and brand-new ARRL member.

And since you're talking about "appealing to the generations just coming of age", it should be mentioned that *you* asked FCC (in 1998, long before you were a ham) to ban *anyone* under the age of 14 years from holding any class of amateur license:

http://tinyurl.com/y6uhr3

Even accused a VEC of fraud:

http://tinyurl.com/2k5mb5

AF6AY: "The core membership is insistent, subborn, and refusing to change with the obvious evolution of the state of the radio art. That is probably the reason ARRL membership hasn't increased any more than it has."

You haven't said what you'd do differently, Len. All those words but not one suggestion of how to change it.

AF6AY: "We, the public, INCLUDING ARRL members like myself, cannot easily find out how many members there are since one has to write the QST staff to get a Publisher's Sworn Statement that shows the numbers."

How hard is that? One email.

And you claim to know what percentage of US hams are ARRL members, so it can't be a big secret.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(League member for 39 years)
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EIK posted:

"Hmmmm, no code... Personally I think it sucks and degrades our hobby. I got licensed back around 1983 (84?, I had to drive 90 miles into the heart of NY city and go to the FCC headquarters. No VE test back then. I pushed myself hard to learn code. I really, really REALLY wanted to be a ham and REALLY wanted to upgrade so I pushed myself and learned and increased my proficiency. I became inactive for about 9 years due to business obligations and got back active only a few years ago and was 'befuddled' by the apparent "dumbing down" of the hobby that I loved so much. To me, it seems that many people would rather exert 10 times the effort to get out of a requirement than actually complying with it. Learning CW at 5wpm should not be that big of a deal. Yeah ok...blow it back to me by saying something like "easy for me". No, guess what, it was NOT easy for me, but I did it. It was required and it was TRADITION and it was (what I thought) made me part of a special group of people that I idolized called HAM RADIO OPERATORS."

Isn't it just awful that the LAW doesn't comply with your special desires? Oh, my, how terrible. NOT. Sad to say for so many of the OLDER generation that time doesn't stop, stand still, so they can spout off about how good they are at radiotelegraphy and 'working DX' and filling logbooks and, most of all, keeping up this 'tradition' of venerating ancient times long gone. Just like They did. Yawn.

Six years before you were born I was assigned to a U.S. Army HF communications hub in Tokyo. Even though a volunteer enlistee, I didn't have much choice in that. Did that station use morse code mode? NO. Not a single active circuit, not one of the three dozen transmitters used any on-off keying CW mode, yet it was responsible for relaying an average of 220,000 messages a month. [try that on the National Traffic System] That was 1953 to 1956 for me. The TRADITION of the Signal Corps was 'get the message through.' I like to think that those of us who were there did even if none of us 'pounded brass' or worshipped at the Church of St. Hiram nor read all the advertising in QST. 24/7 duty and we had to keep up training on 'closing with and destroying the enemy.'

New York City was the 'headuarters' of the FCC? I don't think so. You had to travel an awful 90 miles to get there? How terrible! In 1956 I took a train into Chicago, also a 90 mile trip, to get my First 'Phone license test at the FCC Field Office there (didn't have a car after release from active duty). Radio amateur applicants had to do the same at the time. NO privatization for ANY radio licenses then. I didn't bitch about how awful that was. It was the LAW.

Funny thing about the LAW. It is changeable. In the USA we ordinary citizens can actually, all by ourselves (if we want), CHANGE the LAW to fit the needs, desires of citizens. Yes, it is true. The U.S. Constitution spells it all out and gives us citizens the RIGHT to do that. Some of us believed enough in that to volunteer for military service to defend those rights. To do that we ALL swore to put our LIVES on the line, at any time, as part of the service.

Nowhere in any law and certain 'traditions' of an amateur HOBBY have I seen where I must swear to put my LIFE on the line for either ham radio or amateur radio. Nowhere have I seen any rule, regulation, or any LAW that demands I use radiotelegraphy on any allocated amateur band except two tiny slices of spectrum in the 6m and 2m bands. What a bunch of old-timer traditionalist BSers seem to think is that we 'must' do so, forever and til the end of time (their time, anyway). Now how does that look to some aspiring radio amateur applicant of today? Think about it.

Well before 1990 (17 years ago, the entirety of life to any of today's high school teeners) there was a movement to end the code testing for U.S. radio amateur licenses. In 1991 the FCC, having heard the arguments on both sides, acquiesced partly and created the no-code-test Technician class. Like it or not, the no-code-test Tech was a success and today there are twice as many Tech licensees as Generals...it is the LARGEST class group of all U.S. licenses, active or inactive. In 1999, after a heated debate and Comment on the Restructuring NPRM 98-143, the FCC dropped all amateur code test rates to 5 WPM and eliminated new licensing of three of six classes, effective in 2000. After a lot of demanding by the
old-timer morsemen through 18 Petitions to change code testing back to 'traditional' means, the FCC put forth NPRM 05-235 that proposed ending ALL amateur radio license code testing. The Internet allowed us ordinary citizens to comment DIRECTLY with the FCC, no need to 'filter' everything through some quasi-democratic 'representative' membership organization. Ordinary citizens were heard and understood! How awful it must have been to the old-timer morsemen! The sky fell on them and they haven't stopped squawking and complaining and bitching about it since the official END of code testing on 23 February 2007. Oh, boo hoo on these old-timer morsemen being dragged, kicking and screaming into this new millenium! Their 'feelings' were hurt! Tsk, tsk. 'We' should all feel so sorry about these self-professed 'experts of radio?' Should the LAW remain in force JUST for a distinct MINORITY of the 'higher classes?' How does that look to some aspiring radio amateur applicant of today?

I took the only test I've ever taken for an amateur license at age 74. I hadn't planned on it, nor sworn on some bible of amateurism, lying face down in the nave of the Church of St. Hiram, that I would do so. The 23 November 2007 cut-off date was almost a personal anniversary of 51 years after I'd successfully passed my First 'Phone test. Why not do it? I did it. A bunch of old-timer morsemen are both scornful and resentful that I passed all three tests all at once! Foxtrot Uniform to them. The LAW allowed it. Maybe my Comments to the FCC helped change that LAW. It was time to do it. Was I supposed to WORK at all the 'expert knowledge' gained doing radiotelegraphy? I'd had a successful career as an electronics design engineer IN radio-electronics. Am I supposed to spend years and years WORKING UP to this 'expertise' of radiotelegraphy? I've worked for a living for half a century. Every other radio service in the USA has given up on using on-off keying CW for communications? Just how do you or any other morseman think that looks to newcomers?

Should the LAW of 1912 remained in force all the way to 2007? All hobbyists in radio being REQUIRED to pass a morse code test? The original 'morse code' was first used commercially in 1844, 163 years ago. The automobile hadn't been perfected yet and there were no airplanes then and medical science wasn't very advanced, indeed much of science was still primitive. "Radio" wasn't publicly demonstrated until 1896, 111 years ago. Early "radio' was technologically PRIMITIVE back then and on-off keying was the ONLY means to use it. Should we keep on testing for on-off keying CW JUST because it was the first mode in radio? In a HOBBY activity? Just how does that look to newcomers to amateur radio of today?

From your picture on www.qrz.com your rig is software controlled. That would have been impossible in an amateur radio station of 1947. If you venerate radiotelegraphy so much and want the WORK ethic applied a la the typical old-timer morseman's demands, you should give that computer stuff away to someone who could appreciate it. You 'should' be doing everything manually, WORKING at it to perfect the skills of the 1920s and 1930s in radio to venerate tradition, yes? It's the old-timers' way, isn't it? What you have is Instant Gratification in playing with your radios, isn't it? No WORK to it.

For myself, I just can't see all this self-righteous moralism expressed by old-timer morsemen. I've hit my 75 year mark, have been IN radio since 1952, had a successful career, don't make a pretense of being 'expert' in procedures as they were when I was born. The world has changed remarkably in my lifetime and I've changed with it as much as possible. THAT is FUN to me. I'll talk to newcomers about radio in terms of TODAY, not of a century past or holding to some mythical 'traditions' of glory in amateurism. Yeah, I'll mention a few things that I did IN radio of long ago, but that is to emphasize How Things Have Changed. I didn't get a federal license in the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service in 2007. However, anyone else is free to Petition the FCC to make that possible. The LAW can be changed back. Go for it, all you old-timers. :-)

73, Len AF6AY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY blabbered the same old stuff on 10 November 2007:

"Not true. In early 2001, ARRL changed its policy about ITU-R 25.5 from "support keeping it" to "no opinion". Which meant no opposition to its deletion."

Really? You are now the reknowned etymologist who wants to tell off pro writers?

Or are you an entymologist with a bug in your ear? :-)

This "no opposition" thing was a POLITICAL move to attempt placating the IARU. Do not give us this crap about the League being some kind of goody-two-shoes. The IARU carried the ball over during WRC-03 against the ARRL. TS to Kizzy and the Newington gang.
...............................
AF6AY: "ARRL has a membership of LESS than a quarter of all US amateur radio licensees. ARRL survives, pays its staff, keeps up the grounds, remodels its office building with or without any 'golden bricks', has a professional lobbying organization and a DC law firm on retainer...because of it being a PUBLISHER of a great number of books and assorted resell items. It doesn't do that just on membership fees. It couldn't possibly exist without either raising membership fees ten times current rates or having those printing presses keep on cranking out lots of softcover books and CDs."

N2EY: "How do you know for sure, Len?"

Jimmy, I've had some experience with budgeting and costs in the magazine trade OTHER than with Ham Radio magazine. I've also viewed ARRL's federal income tax returns for past years. The activity of the ARRL is primarily that of a publishing firm. PROFIT keeps the ARRL alive, pays the salaries of its staff, heats the buildings, pays for utilities, buys the office and lab equipment, as well as providing remodeling of their office building, including a place to put their memorial bricks. Its simple accounting on a realistic basis, not some idealistic BS stuffed into the minds of members.
...................
N2EY: "But, Len, you're older than most of those you are talking about. You're more removed from "generations coming of age" than most of us, even though you're a brand-new ham and brand-new ARRL
member."

Oh, my, Sister Nun of the Above is trying to ruler-spank me again. She has tried that for a dozen years
and can't stop me. :-) She should get a sex-change operation and come back as Torquemada II. :-)

Sweetie, I'm NOT a 'beginner' at LIFE. I'm NOT a 'beginner' in RADIO as I was 55 years ago. Quit trying to sound like you're the grizzled 104-year-old veteran of everything.
....................
N2EY: "And since you're talking about "appealing to the generations just coming of age", it should be mentioned that *you* asked FCC (in 1998, long before you were a ham) to ban *anyone* under the age of 14 years from holding any class of amateur license:"

Jimmy, that's just plain and simple WRONG. Go to the FCC ECFS and Search through 98-143 for 13 January 1999. 1999, Jimmy, not earlier in 1998. My Reply to Comments is there for all to see, not some edited version put in some private URL to be used over and over and over and over again in the usual character assassination attempts you've done for years. To be specific, go to the last page of my Reply to Comments and you will see it.

But, you poor thing, you are Personally Offended and think that was all some kind of Specific Personal Insult on your greatness of being? Oh, oh, yes, yes, YOU got your first ham ticket at age 13 1/2 and are
'insulted!' I was Replying to Michael Deignan, KH6HZ, at the time, not young teener Jimmy Miccolis.

You want to keep on bringing that up 8 1/2 years after the fact, even when I've dropped it long ago? You will. You can't help yourself with your mental bullemia on the computer.
..................
N2EY: "Even accused a VEC of fraud:"

Oh! Oh! How dreadful! Anyone looking at my Reply to Comments for 13 January 1999 will see that on a
footnote along with a reference to the ARRL Letter On Line date that had the 'news'.

Don't waste anyone's time on more of this BS, Jimmy.
.................
AF6AY: "We, the public, INCLUDING ARRL members like myself, cannot easily find out how many members there are since one has to write the QST staff to get a Publisher's Sworn Statement that shows the numbers."

N2EY: "How hard is that? One email."

As 'hard' as getting an email back saying I'm not a potential advertising space buyer, therefore have no
business getting that information! :-)
...............
N2EY: "And you claim to know what percentage of US hams are ARRL members, so it can't be a big secret."

It was mentioned elsewhere on the ARRL Letter On Line that there are now about 155 thousand members. At 650 thousand 'active' licensees in the USA (licenses NOT in 2-year grace period) that works out to about 23% (23.8% for nit-pickers). Any way you slice it, that is NOT a quarter of all licensees, is it? Of course not, but you WILL argue and argue and argue that point. You can't help yourself. You haven't stopped yourself in a dozen years. You are predictable as the sun coming up
tomorrow.
..................
N2EY: "(League member for 39 years)"

Bully for you. You did odd jobs after school to support your membership dues as a teen-ager? :-)

Good on that. Shows a Spirit of Belonging, of Being a Somebody even before voting age! :-)

I'm a 'newcomer' to the IEEE, a professional association, only been a voting member for 34 years. :-) You ever do any professional work in electrical engineering? Belong to any professional associations? Or do you consider yourself still an amateur in that?
....................
You can continue this on-going attempt at character assassination that you began on rec.radio.amateur.policy long ago - and also make everyone else tired of your tirades on personalities. Or, you can concentrate on the content of the SUBJECT. Your choice. It should be the latter, not the former.
I can choose to answer you directly (in YOUR style or in any other style) if you choose the former. That
will also make others disgusted with your petty disputes. If I have time, I might answer your petty
disagreements. No sweat. I've been doing computer-modem comms longer than you have. Have seen all
kinds. Even versions of mental bullemia that you have. :-)

AF6AY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by URBANGORILLA on November 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Leonard Anderson, I remember you. You are the fanatical Anti-code kook that posted a reply to every one of those 18 proposals along with a reply comment to every pro-code comment on ECFS. Every comment and reply comment of yours was the longest-winded waste of bandwidth on the FCC's ECFS site. It wouldn't surprise me if you dedicated every waking hour of your life during those years (2004-2006) to your Anti-Code crusade.

At the time, you indicated yourself to be a private citizen and a non-ham. If you wanted a ham license that bad, why didn't you just spend the lousy 30 hours it takes to learn enough code to pass the Element 1 exam? You obviously spent a lot more time and effort on ECFS fighting to end code testing than it would have taken to learn the darn code in the first place.

Mr. Anderson, I detect extreme hatred and intolerance on your part for anyone who wanted to keep the code requirement in place. Now I will ask you in your own words "Just how does that look to newcomers to amateur radio of today"?

Your Anti-Code Crusade and long-winded babel is extremely counterproductive. You are a cancer to amateur radio. You are like a barnacle that attaches itself to the bottom of a ship. Thank goodness we won't have to put up with the likes of you for long.

At age 75 it appears that your mind is turning to mush. It won't be long before you are babbling incoherently in some nursing home in Sun Valley, CA.

73
UG
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by URBANGORILLA on November 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
To everybody on this thread:

A WORD TO THE WISE-

Be warned. If you engage in debate with AF6AY Leonard Anderson on this or any topic, you will just sink deeper and deeper into the quicksand that the King of Trolls has laid in front of you. Ignore this cancer on EHAM and on the ham bands at all cost. This man is a real kook that thrives on sucking innocent victims into his warped confrontations.

73
UG
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"URBANGORILLA" babbled from atop a palm tree:

"Leonard Anderson, I remember you."

Good! Keep that in mind while you hide behind some stupid handle.

As a little bitty gorilla, you must be a refugee from Isla Flaca, right?* :-) Got that Green Card yet?
..................
UG the inglorious: "You are the fanatical Anti-code kook that posted a reply to every one of those 18 proposals along with a reply comment to every pro-code comment on ECFS."

Tsk, that's pure and simple WRONG, little monkeek. :-)
...................
UG the weak-minded: "Every comment and reply comment of yours was the longest-winded waste of bandwidth on the FCC's ECFS site."

Poor baby. Disagree with some of those, did you? Awwwww.... :-)

Anyone can go to the FCC ECFS and see what I Commented on. Just use their nice Search feature. No need to make edited exerpts to put in any 'tinyurl' storage.
..................
UG the simpleton: "It wouldn't surprise me if you dedicated every waking hour of your life during those years (2004-2006) to your Anti-Code crusade."

Poor lil monkeek. :-) NO, I did NOT do what you've deluded yourself into thinking. :-)
...................
UG the brainless: "At the time, you indicated yourself to be a private citizen and a non-ham."

That's true, at least. :-) There's something 'wrong' with being a private citizen and a non-ham? They OUTNUMBER all the radio amateurs there are, or ever were.

I'm still a private citizen. But, I'm now a federally-licensed radio amateur with an Amateur Extra class lcense. TS. If that offends you go to Riley Hollingsworth, Special Counsel in the Enforcement Branch. Hollingsworth is NOT retiring soon. The FCC listens to everyone. It's the LAW. They just don't have to act on what everyone wants. <shrug>
...................
UG the baseless nincompoop: "If you wanted a ham license that bad, why didn't you just spend the lousy
30 hours it takes to learn enough code to pass the Element 1 exam?"

Tsk, tsk, little monkeek. I did NOT 'want a ham license that bad.' I've never been in farming or raised hogs or even applied to the FDA for anything.
..................
UG the anonymous schoolyard bully-wannabe: "You obviously spent a lot more time and effort on ECFS fighting to end code testing than it would have taken to learn the darn code in the first place."

That's 'damn' little monkeek...Delta Alpha Mama November...a four-letter word. Try using English instead of Isla Flacan Spanglish. :-)
.................
UG the nutso lil monkeek: "Mr. Anderson, I detect extreme hatred and intolerance on your part for anyone who wanted to keep the code requirement in place."

Awwww...can't stand both sides of an issue, can you? TS, lil monkeek. Believe it or not, taking an opposition isn't anything 'extreme,' nor is it 'intolerance.' It was patently obvious that morsemen considered themselves the Rulers of the HF ham bands and wouldn't accept any compromise
whatsoever. Their arrogance in front of the FCC got them what they deserved. <shrug>
..................
UG the Ugly: "Now I will ask you in your own words "Just how does that look to newcomers to amateur
radio of today"?"

I'd say PRETTY DAMN GOOD! :-) Democratic principles WORK, little fascist monkeek. U.S. amateur radio isn't some Crips v. Bloods 'hood where some wanna-be warlords can boss others around.

ANYONE can campaign for something in this modern world. IF and only IF one has the courage to stand up for what they believe in. Of course, YOU can't, can you, hiding behind a stupid little anonymous name like 'Quitefine' once did. :-)
.................
UG the unseeing: "Your Anti-Code Crusade and long-winded babel is extremely counterproductive."

Was it? :-) The FCC thought otherwise! What happened on 23 February 2007? :-) Lots and lots of Real Americans stood up for what they believed in. That's a sign to the newcomers that they too can DO IT.

They don't have to be bullied by some deluded old-timers trying to maintain the long-ago standards of their youth. Nor by brainless gutless anonymous harrassers.

BTW, the word is 'babble,' not babel. Maybe you are thinking of Post-It notes, making insulting little labels in your gutless little diatribe?
..................
UG the fascist: "You are a cancer to amateur radio. You are like a barnacle that attaches itself to the bottom of a ship. Thank goodness we won't have to put up with the likes of you for long."

Let's see, this is Saturday and there's no school. What are you going to do on Monday? Wait until classes are over and beat me up in the schoolyard? :-)
...................
UG the troglodyte: "At age 75 it appears that your mind is turning to mush. It won't be long before you are babbling incoherently in some nursing home in Sun Valley, CA."

Poor young baby. Playing the age card are you? Of course. You don't have the guts to stand up for what you believe in if you hide behind an anonymous moniker. It's all you got left in your torn little bag of arguments. Nothing valid. Just taunts and personal insults. A bully-wannabe who does a poor, poor job of that. So that's what modern U.S. amateur radio has come to? Lots of bully-wannabes shouting insults while hiding behind anonymity?

How do you think YOU look to newcomers? STUPID is a word that comes to mind. GUTLESS is another. You hide and try to snipe yet can't hit a damn thing. This is NOT a battle, little monkeek. It is NOT some X-Box adventure that exists in your excuse for a brain. YOU died a long time ago. You don't have the intelligence to understand that you did.

Go back to Isla Flaca where you came from. Fight back at the Gorilla Fighters there. Let's see how you do. Maybe Reni Santoni will let us know? :-)

AF6AY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
'Urbangorilla,' unable to control his bodily functions, wrote:

"Be warned. If you engage in debate with AF6AY Leonard Anderson on this or any topic, you will just sink deeper and deeper into the quicksand that the King of Trolls has laid in front of you. Ignore this cancer on EHAM and on the ham bands at all cost. This man is a real kook that thrives on sucking innocent victims into his warped confrontations."

YAWN...

AF6AY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K5YF on November 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Len

Urbangorilla's comments not withstanding (Too funny, LOL!) I certainly do NOT have a license to practice law and my comments shouldn't be construed as legal advice or legal opinion. Instead, consider it a non-ABA/LBA opinion.

In fact, I am obviously incorrect and you are obviously correct. Unless, of course the opposite is true. But it puzzles me that your posts would seem so confrontational. Those who know they are correct rarely make use of such condemning or aggressive language.

Everyone's comments add something to the discussion, but each of us must use our own value test upon them.

So instead of attempting to stifle the debate with conclusions (I made this mistake as well), post an opinion and let everyone else make up their own mind.

Besides, we aren't going to solve any of these issues here. But we might as well have fun arguing about it.

Best 73 and good health!
-Brandon
-N5JYK

ding! ---round 11
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by URBANGORILLA on November 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Anderson, anyone who would call me a fascist is obviously a communist. When you croak, I'll make the trip cross-country just to spit on your grave, you vermin filth.

UG
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W4LGH on November 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
After being the county EC for 4 years, it about killed the hobby for me!! The ARES folks wanna take themselves way to serious. I tried to change that, with no luck at all. One last ditch effort and it got even worse. I was completely fed up with it and resigned. Not that I don't like to help people, or want to help, its just now that I choose what I want to do. Orange Vests, red caps and yellow flsahing lights, then all the additional training the govts wanted everyone to do. Hey, weren't we all trianed by the time we got or license to communicate?

Then you have the ARRL's involvement, and I want NOTHING to do with that BOGUS organization. The ARRL has done more BAD for the hobby than good. The elected staff are just figures, and nothing to do with how the ARRL is run. Its the Exec staff heading up by K1ZZ, David Summer, that runs the ARRL as he sees fit, and to allow him more FREE perks. I dropped out over a year ago. Do yourself the same favor, don't renew. Then and only then, we might get the Exec Board to pay attention.

73 de W4LGH - Alan
http://www.w4lgh.com
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Dont forget they did have a license just for those with medical problems..it was called Conditional and it was for many reason but required a Doctors signature and having the tests done in front of examiners. So there wasnt too many excuses why it couldnt be done. In fatc when I firstgot interested in the Novice it was 71/2 wpm not the 5 we had today which wasnt all that much harder. Too many excuses from one's who just couldnt bare the choice of doing it the way others did. And they cried like about long before any of us who really wanted it to stay. Now its there turn to pick on the others.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY wrote: "This "no opposition" thing was a POLITICAL move to attempt placating the IARU."

It was a major policy change by ARRL. It meant they would not oppose changing the treaty requirement for a code test.


N2EY: "But, Len, you're older than most of those you are talking about. You're more removed from "generations coming of age" than most of us, even though you're a brand-new ham and brand-new ARRL
member."

AF6AY: "Oh, my, Sister Nun of the Above is trying to ruler-spank me again. She has tried that for a dozen years
and can't stop me. :-) She should get a sex-change operation and come back as Torquemada II. :-)"

You're still older than most of those you talk about, Len. You're not from a generation that is "coming of age". Not by a long shot!

AF6AY: "I'm NOT a 'beginner' at LIFE."

Nobody says you are. But you *are* a beginner in amateur radio. That's a fact, and there's nothing wrong with it.

AF6AY: "I'm NOT a 'beginner' in RADIO as I was 55 years ago."

Nobody says you are. But you *are* a beginner in amateur radio. That's a fact, and there's nothing wrong with it.

AF6AY: "Quit trying to sound like you're the grizzled 104-year-old veteran of everything."

I'm 53, Len, and there's nothing wrong with the way I sound.

I have 40+ years of experience as a radio amateur. You don't even have 40 *weeks* of experience as a radio amateur.

N2EY: "And since you're talking about "appealing to the generations just coming of age", it should be mentioned that *you* asked FCC (in 1998, long before you were a ham) to ban *anyone* under the age of 14 years from holding any class of amateur license:"

AF6AY: "that's just plain and simple WRONG."

No, it isn't. It's what you wrote in these comments to FCC:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6006041560

or:

http://tinyurl.com/y6uhr3

(both links go to the same place)

AF6AY: "Go to the FCC ECFS and Search through 98-143 for 13 January 1999. 1999, ... not earlier in 1998."

So I was off by two weeks. You wanted no one under the age of 14 years to have a US amateur radio license.

AF6AY: "My Reply to Comments is there for all to see, not some edited version put in some private URL"

The links I posted are not to an "edited version". They are to the ECFS system, and link to your actual Reply Comments.

Here it is again:

http://tinyurl.com/y6uhr3

Don't you have the guts to click on that link and see where it goes? I think not - because if you did, you'd know that it just connects to ECFS and your reply comments.

AF6AY: "To be specific, go to the last page of my Reply to Comments and you will see it."

That's why I posted the link.

AF6AY: "But, you poor thing, you are Personally Offended and think that was all some kind of Specific Personal Insult on your greatness of being? Oh, oh, yes, yes, YOU got your first ham ticket at age 13 1/2 and are 'insulted!' I was Replying to Michael Deignan, KH6HZ, at the time,"

You were suggesting something new in Reply Comments, Len. That's not what Reply Comments are for.

The fact that your Reply Comments were aimed at KH6HZ does not mean no one else can say anything about them.

But the real issue is this: You wanted FCC to enact a minimum age requirement for amateur radio licenses even though no such requirement has ever existed in the USA, and even though you are unable to produce even a single case where the youth of a licensed radio amateur caused any on-the-air problems. Yet now you talk about amateur radio "appealing to the generations just coming of age".

How will an age requirement of 14 years make amateur radio more "appealing to the generations just coming of age", Len?

AF6AY: "You want to keep on bringing that up 8 1/2 years after the fact, even when I've dropped it long ago?"

I bring it up because it's relevant. You say you "dropped it" - does that mean you admit you were wrong in 1999?

N2EY: "Even accused a VEC of fraud:"

AF6AY: "Oh! Oh! How dreadful! Anyone looking at my Reply to Comments for 13 January 1999 will see that on a footnote along with a reference to the ARRL Letter On Line date that had the 'news'."

Here's the accusation of fraud:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.amateur.policy/msg/f91dda07aa353634?dmode=source&hl=en

or

http://tinyurl.com/2k5mb5

(both links go to the same place)

I wonder how the ARRL VEC who gave your exam earlier this year would feel if they knew of your accusations of fraud...

AF6AY: "Don't waste anyone's time on more of this BS"

Don't you want people to know your views, Len?

N2EY: "And you claim to know what percentage of US hams are ARRL members, so it can't be a big secret."

AF6AY: "It was mentioned elsewhere on the ARRL Letter On Line that there are now about 155 thousand members."

Not really a big secret, is it?

AF6AY: "At 650 thousand 'active' licensees in the USA (licenses NOT in 2-year grace period) that works out to about 23% (23.8% for nit-pickers). Any way you slice it, that is NOT a quarter of all licensees, is it?"

Nope. Particularly since there are over 655,000 current US amateur licenses.

But so what? No amateur radio group in the USA has anything like ARRL's membership. Not even close.

N2EY: "(League member for 39 years)"

AF6AY: "Bully for you. You did odd jobs after school to support your membership dues as a teen-ager? :-)"

Sure. It was money well spent, too.

AF6AY: "Good on that. Shows a Spirit of Belonging, of Being a Somebody even before voting age! :-)

I'm a 'newcomer' to the IEEE, a professional association, only been a voting member for 34 years. :-)"

Gee, Len, that shows a Spirit of Belonging, of Being a Somebody, even if you don't have an EE degree....

AF6AY: "You ever do any professional work in electrical engineering?"

Yes. In fact, I may have done more than you have. I'm certain that I've done things in electrical engineering that you have not.

AF6AY: "Belong to any professional associations?"

Yes.

But I don't insist on mentioning what I do for work in practically every posting, as you do.

AF6AY: "You can continue this on-going attempt at character assassination that you began on rec.radio.amateur.policy long ago - and also make everyone else tired of your tirades on personalities."

Len, all I've done is provide some links to things *you* have written, and point out some mistakes and contradictions in what you write here.

AF6AY: "Or, you can concentrate on the content of the SUBJECT."

The subject is "CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'". Considering your anti-code tirades here, it seems my comments are right on the subject.

I think what bothers you is that you don't want folks here on eham to see some of the things you've written, both to FCC and to other hams.

And I don't see anyone else in this thread, or in any other on eham, saying they are tired of reading what I have to say.

AF6AY: "Your choice. It should be the latter, not the former."

Who are you to say what I should write, Len? Don't you believe in free speech?

AF6AY: "I can choose to answer you directly (in YOUR style or in any other style) if you choose the former. That will also make others disgusted with your petty disputes."

Len, you only have one style. It's not a very convincing one, either.

AF6AY: "If I have time, I might answer your petty
disagreements."

Go ahead, then. Discuss the subject. I don't think you can do so without the personal insults, though.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Posted By N5JYK

"Urbangorilla's comments not withstanding (Too funny, LOL!) I certainly do NOT have a license to practice law and my comments shouldn't be construed as legal advice or legal opinion."

Understood. But, those who use anonymous names and do nothing but insult others cannot be taken as worthwhile for any side of a discussion. I've seen that kind of personality by the dozens elsewhere in the computer-modem world over the last 23 years, have met some of them in-person and find them even less desireable as alleged human beings. They are just cowards, afraid to show who they really are.
.............
N5JYK: "In fact, I am obviously incorrect and you are obviously correct. Unless, of course the opposite is true. But it puzzles me that your posts would seem so confrontational. Those who know they are correct rarely make use of such condemning or aggressive language."

It goes with the territory. :-) In fact, it is what the military calls 'denied territory,' meaning of course the 'other side' or just plain 'the enemy.' If all hew the Party Line (i.e., boosting morse code and all that 'tradition' stuff along with strict adherence to whatever the ARRL directs), then all is copacetic and 'everyone gets along.' :-)

Go contrary to the Party Line and usually all hell breaks loose. Those who have the licenses due to morse code testing are sometimes arrogant and overbearing to (what they seem to think are) 'lesser beings.' What you accuse me of doing, that is aggressive behavior and condemning language, applies ALSO to the pro-code-test side...if not more so. You may not consider that but I expect that you and others don't consider yourselves that way. <shrug>
................
N5JYK: "Everyone's comments add something to the discussion, but each of us must use our own value test upon them."

That IS done. But with one exception. Pro-code-testers seldom, if ever, consider code-test-eliminators as worthy of discussion, only of personal humiliation and contempt. That's just the way it is. Here and elsewhere.
................
N5JYK: "So instead of attempting to stifle the debate with conclusions (I made this mistake as well), post an opinion and let everyone else make up their own mind."

'Stifle the debate?!?' In what way? This article subject is NOT about the code test, it is about how
OTHERS see the U.S. amateur radio scene of NOW. By the statistics, there is a tiny tiny rise in the numbers of licensees, still short of what it was four years ago. Newcomers are entering through the Technician class and not lusting after HF access in the urban areas. They don't see the U.S. amateur radio scene as all the old-timers did, haven't bought the old old PR about tradition and nobility of amateur radio and how all should revere and worship the old old traditions. I'm not referring to me, I've been around too long, have seen all the propaganda and didn't buy it then, won't buy it now. I'm referring to the younger folk I've talked honestly to. They aren't buying the propaganda either. Can't say I blame them.

One tactic of 'stifling debate' is what N2EY does, deliberate misdirection of a subject into his own subject challenges (loaded for dismissive, subjective counters on his terms, not the subject). He's done that for a dozen years over on Usenet and tries to do it here. Keep watching. It's his main ploy on alleged
discussion. :-) He can't admit to it without losing face but it is a regular thing with him.
...............
N5JYK: "Besides, we aren't going to solve any of these issues here. But we might as well have fun arguing about it."

I beg to differ. Many of the points brought up by all sides CAN be used in real arguments put forth before the FCC. On NPRM 05-235 the pro-code-testers just couldn't convince the FCC of their invincible rightness and lost the game. Try to live with it. I know it is difficult for the self-righteous to adapt to an alien concept but the LAW is the LAW.

This is not 'fun' by any means. No debate about ideologies is 'fun.' No debate about religion is 'fun.' These are ideological and regious arguments which are proven only by those who have the courage to speak their minds openly and honestly...and willing to concede on matters that will affect untold thousands of
those yet to enter amateur radio in the USA. Shall those unknowns be saddled with archaic requirements of 80 years past? Shall those be burdened by inconsiderate older licensees who berate them for not living up to the 'standards' of some grumpy old men who don't know much except what they've done their whole time in the hobby? Shall the old-timer licensees all be given dispensation to freely 'rule' on their own self-righteousness? I don't think that is a good idea.

N5JYK: "Best 73 and good health!"

Thank you and the same to you. Contrary to what some anonymousies think, my health is quite good. :-)

AF6AY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
UG pounded his little hairless chest and mewed:

"Anderson, anyone who would call me a fascist is obviously a communist. When you croak, I'll make the trip cross-country just to spit on your grave, you vermin filth."

HAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!

Now THERE's a real booster for U.S. amateur radio! :-)
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 10, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY wrote: "Six years before you were born I was assigned to a U.S. Army HF communications hub in Tokyo. Even though a volunteer enlistee, I didn't have much choice in that. Did that station use morse code mode? NO."

So what? ADA wasn't an amateur station. And you didn't run the place yourself - weren't there about 700 other Army personnel there too?

AF6AY: "What a bunch of old-timer traditionalist BSers seem to think is that we 'must' do so, forever and til the end of time (their time, anyway)."

No, that's not true.

A majority of those who bothered to comment to FCC supported continued Morse Code testing for some classes of amateur radio license. FCC disagreed and followed the *minority* opinion.

AF6AY: "Now how does that look to some aspiring radio amateur applicant of today? Think about it."

I think it looks like the FCC doesn't listen to what the majority wants.

AF6AY : "Well before 1990 (17 years ago, the entirety of life to any of today's high school teeners) there was a movement to end the code testing for U.S. radio amateur licenses."

By whom?

AF6AY: "In 1991 the FCC, having heard the arguments on both sides, acquiesced partly and created the no-code-test Technician class."

No, that's not how it happened, Len. The story is a lot more involved than that.

Here's what *really* happened:

In 1975, less than a decade after the changes known as "incentive licensing" went into effect, FCC proposed a new "two ladder" amateur radio license structure with no less than *seven* license classes.
Included in that proposal was a new no-code-test "Communicator" license class that would have allowed some VHF/UHF privileges.

The reaction from the amateur community was extremely negative, and FCC dropped that proposal.

In 1983, FCC tried again to institute a nocodetest class of amateur radio license. Again, the reaction from the amateur community was extremely negative, and FCC dropped that proposal.

In 1990, FCC created "medical waivers" for the 13 and 20 wpm code tests, because president Bush (the first) wanted to do a favor for a now-dead King who was also a ham. This made all classes of US amateur license available for a 5 wpm test if you could get a doctor's note.

In 1991, FCC simply dropped the code test from the requirements for the Technician class license. FCC did not create a new license class; they just changed the requirements for an existing one.

This created a bit of confusion because some Technicians had passed a code test and some hadn't, and the privileges for the two were different. Plus the credit for upgrading was different too. So about 1994 FCC added the "Technician Plus" class to clarify the difference.

AF6AY: Like it or not, the no-code-test Tech was a success and today there are twice as many Tech licensees as Generals

It's also true that since April of 2000, all Tech Pluses have been renewed as Tech.

AF6AY: "In 1999, after a heated debate and Comment on the Restructuring NPRM 98-143, the FCC dropped all amateur code test rates to 5 WPM and eliminated new licensing of three of six classes, effective in 2000."

FCC did so even though the majority of those who commented on 98-143 wanted at least two code test speeds.

AF6AY: "After a lot of demanding by the
old-timer morsemen through 18 Petitions to change code testing back to 'traditional' means, the FCC put forth NPRM 05-235 that proposed ending ALL amateur radio license code testing."

Actually, a number of those 18 petitions were from those demanding an end to all code testing.

AF6AY: "The Internet allowed us ordinary citizens to comment DIRECTLY with the FCC, no need to 'filter' everything through some quasi-democratic 'representative' membership organization. Ordinary citizens were heard and understood!"

It has been possible for "ordinary citizens" to comment directly to FCC for as long as FCC has existed. The internet did not make it possible, just a little easier. The US mail worked fine for all the time before ECFS.

AF6AY: "How awful it must have been to the old-timer morsemen! The sky fell on them and they haven't stopped squawking and complaining and bitching about it since the official END of code testing on 23 February 2007. Oh, boo hoo on these old-timer morsemen being dragged, kicking and screaming into this new millenium! Their 'feelings' were hurt! Tsk, tsk. 'We' should all feel so sorry about these self-professed 'experts of radio?' Should the LAW remain in force JUST for a distinct MINORITY of the 'higher classes?' How does that look to some aspiring radio amateur applicant of today?"

Perhaps they should read some of *your* squawking, Len....

AF6AY: "I took the only test I've ever taken for an amateur license at age 74. I hadn't planned on it, nor sworn on some bible of amateurism, lying face down in the nave of the Church of St. Hiram, that I would do so. The 23 November 2007 cut-off date was almost a personal anniversary of 51 years after I'd successfully passed my First 'Phone test. Why not do it? I did it."

Why did you wait so long, Len?

A nocodetest license was available to you back in 1991. You didn't go for it.

In January of 2000, you said you were 'going for extra out of the box". But you didn't.

http://tinyurl.com/c5qyv

(that's a direct link to a posting where you said you were going to get an Extra license).

AF6AY: "A bunch of old-timer morsemen are both scornful and resentful that I passed all three tests all at once!"

Who were they, Len?

AF6AY: "Foxtrot Uniform to them. The LAW allowed it. Maybe my Comments to the FCC helped change that LAW. It was time to do it. Was I supposed to WORK at all the 'expert knowledge' gained doing radiotelegraphy? I'd had a successful career as an electronics design engineer IN radio-electronics. Am I supposed to spend years and years WORKING UP to this 'expertise' of radiotelegraphy? I've worked for a living for half a century."

It sounds to me like you considered yourself to be too good to have to learn Morse Code even at the 5 wpm level. That you considered such a requirement to be beneath your exhalted status. That you held out for decades until the rules changed. You didn't want to be a Novice or anything other than the Top Class. Now you brag endlessly about having gotten Extra all in one sitting.

Or something like that.

AF6AY: "Every other radio service in the USA has given up on using on-off keying CW for communications?"

Is that a question?

AF6AY: "Just how do you or any other morseman think that looks to newcomers?"

I think it makes amateur radio look unique. That's a Good Thing. Amateur radio is not about blind imitation of what other radio services do.

AF6AY: "Should the LAW of 1912 remained in force all the way to 2007? All hobbyists in radio being REQUIRED to pass a morse code test?"

All amateur radio operators, anyway.

AF6AY: "Should we keep on testing for on-off keying CW JUST because it was the first mode in radio?"

Nope.

AF6AY: "In a HOBBY activity? Just how does that look to newcomers to amateur radio of today?"

Morse Code testing should be part of amateur radio licensing because Morse Code is a big part of what radio amateurs actually do. Not because of what other radio services do, or don't do. Simple as that.

And I think Morse Code looks good. Sounds good too. It's a big part of amateur radio *today*.

AF6AY: "For myself, I just can't see all this self-righteous moralism expressed by old-timer morsemen."

Instead, you badger us with your version...

AF6AY: "I've hit my 75 year mark, have been IN radio since 1952, had a successful career, don't make a pretense of being 'expert' in procedures as they were when I was born. The world has changed remarkably in my lifetime and I've changed with it as much as possible."

Really? Sure doesn't sound that way.

I seem to recall that when a developer bought land in your neighborhood some years back, and wanted a minor zoning change to accomodate his plans, you were adamant that NO such change be allowed. You did not want *any* change to the zoning - the LAW - that was in place when you bought your house. All newcomers to the neighborhood would have to accomodate the zoning *you* wanted, with no change, ever. You were completely inflexible on that point.

You lost, however. Too bad.

AF6AY: "THAT is FUN to me. I'll talk to newcomers about radio in terms of TODAY, not of a century past or holding to some mythical 'traditions' of glory in amateurism."

But, Len - *you* are a newcomer to amateur radio!

And you do talk a lot about amateur radio history, though your version is often incomplete and/or erroneous. Like the business about the Technician license, above.

Len, if you're not interested in Morse Code, and have no problem with others using Morse Code, why are you even commenting in this thread?

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N6HPX writes:

"Dont forget they did have a license just for those with medical problems..it was called Conditional and it was for many reason but required a Doctors signature and having the tests done in front of examiners."

Not exactly.

The Conditional/Class C license was created mainly for those who lived so far from an FCC exam point that getting to an exam session would be a real problem. It also was used for people who were shut-ins - so disabled physically that they could not travel to an FCC exam session at all. Only the latter required medical certification.

The Conditional exams were the equivalent of those for General. Same code and written tests, same privileges, no distinctive call.

The Conditional was eliminated in the mid-1970s, when all Conditionals began to be renewed as Generals.

N6HPX: "In fatc when I firstgot interested in the Novice it was 71/2 wpm not the 5 we had today which wasnt all that much harder."

No, it wasn't 7-1/2 wpm. Not ever.

The Morse Code test for the Novice license was *always* 5 wpm, from its beginnings in 1951 to the closing of the license to new issues in 2000. It was never anything other than 5 wpm.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by VE9VIC on November 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
great article,for me cw is the way to go ,my station
is 100 watts dipole and a triband on 60 feet tower,
living in a small town is not possible to get bigger
set up or use higher power so cw is very handy for me,
there people living in places where they can't have
much more than a small vertical or low dipole,
I do have a lot of respect for people using others modes
but for me dx and cw is what I like,73...rino
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by URBANGORILLA on November 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY: "I took the only test I've ever taken for an amateur license at age 74. I hadn't planned on it, nor sworn on some bible of amateurism, lying face down in the nave of the Church of St. Hiram, that I would do so. The 23 November 2007 cut-off date was almost a personal anniversary of 51 years after I'd successfully passed my First 'Phone test. Why not do it? I did it."

You hadn't planned it? You lying sack of schidtt! Your license was issued on 03/07/2007. It takes approx. a week to 10 days to process a new license application. Having planned it for many years, you attended the first test session you could find after Midnight 02/23/2007 and took the 3 Simple Simon exams. Like N2EY said, "It sounds to me like you considered yourself to be too good to have to learn Morse Code even at the 5 wpm level. That you considered such a requirement to be beneath your exhalted status. That you held out for decades until the rules changed. You didn't want to be a Novice or anything other than the Top Class. Now you brag endlessly about having gotten Extra all in one sitting."

After all, why should somebody with your electronic credentials accept anything less than the highest class of amateur radio license? Hey, after all, you are the God of Radio. After the erosion of all the requirements that years of dunbing down has left us with, the Amateur Extra class of license is nothing more than a glorified CB ticket. It has no prestige at all anymore. Your codeless Amateur Extra license has the same worth as a spent piece of toilet tissue. Your sub-human life has equal worth. You are a poor excuse for a human being and an even poorer excuse for an amateur radio operator. The Amateur Radio Service went to Hell the day it allowed dregs like you to get a license. The Morse filter was designed to keep trash like you out of a once great hobby that is now being turned into a CB wasteland. Hams do CW. If you don't do CW, you are not a ham. You are nothing more than a jaw-flapping ham wanna-be CB'er.

I have much respect and admiration for anyone who became a ham after 02/23/2007, but learned and is using CW. They are real hams. Anti-code filth like you are not.

Anderson, the nursing homes are filled with characters that rant and rave all day long about nothing, like you do. Your time is comming.

UG
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Sorry Jim but thats how I remember it when I first started it and thats what the person teaching the class started telling us.

And as for the conditional since I never applied for it that was what I was recalled reading and had been told.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N6HPX writes:

"Sorry Jim but thats how I remember it when I first started it and thats what the person teaching the class started telling us."

Then you're both mistaken. The Novice code test was 5 wpm from the first day of that license to the last. Never anything different. No US amateur radio license ever had a 7-1/2 wpm code test. I've researched the history all the way back to the beginning of US amateur radio licensing and that's how it was.

Now of course there are folks who said you should be able to do at least 7-1/2 wpm before trying the 5 wpm test, as a bit of insurance against nervousness and unfamiliar test environment. But the test itself was always 5 wpm, defined as 25 characters per minute.

Search through old QSTs, CQs, 73s and other ham magazines as well as License Manuals and other training books, and you'll see the code test for Novice was always 5 wpm. 1951 to 2000.

N6HPX: "And as for the conditional since I never applied for it that was what I was recalled reading and had been told."

The Conditional was just a General with the exam issued by-mail, for those who were shut-ins or who lived beyond a certain distance from an FCC exam site that gave exams at least four times per year.

And the Conditional exams were always the same as the General exams.

The "Conditional distance" varied quite a bit over time. Before 1954, it was 125 miles "air-line", meaning as measured straight-line on a map, not how far it was to drive or take a train. And if a Conditional moved closer to an FCC exam point or if a shut-in got well, s/he was required to go to FCC within 90 days and retest.

About 1954 the retest requirement was dropped and the Conditional distance reduced to 75 miles.

About 1964 the Conditional distance was increased to 175 miles and the number of exam sites increased so that almost none of the continental US was "Conditional territory" any more.

All ancient history now. The VE system has been in place for well over 20 years now and there's no sign FCC will change it.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY exclaimed from on high:

"You're still older than most of those you talk about, Len. You're not from a generation that is "coming of age". Not by a long shot!"

Aye, m'lord Amateur of Amateurs, anything we poor peasants say is always wrong.

N2EY: "But you *are* a beginner in amateur radio. That's a fact, and there's nothing wrong with it."

Forgive me, m'lord, my time machine is broken...I cannot go back to 1951 and restart.

N2EY: "But you *are* a beginner in amateur radio. That's a fact, and there's nothing wrong with it."

Yes, m'lord, understand the constant reminders of BEGINNER...there is no other radio but HAM radio. Nothing else counts or is of value. We BEGINNERS understand our place as the lowest of the low.

N2EY: "I'm 53, Len, and there's nothing wrong with the way I sound."

Yes, m'lord. You are perfect in every way.

N2EY: "I have 40+ years of experience as a radio amateur. You don't even have 40 *weeks* of experience as a radio amateur."

Yes, m'lord, you are the Amateur's Amateur. There is no other radio but Amateur. We hear and obey.

<bow deeply> <music over, trumpets sounding fanfare>


N2EY: "Don't you have the guts to click on that link and see where it goes? I think not - because if you did, you'd know that it just connects to ECFS and your reply comments."

Forgive me, m'lord Amateur of Amateurs, I only wrote those documents and cannot possibly know their content and scope without achieving the True Translation by your Mightyness.


N2EY: "You were suggesting something new in Reply Comments, Len. That's not what Reply Comments are for."

Yes, m'lord Amateur Magnificence, we lesser beings hear and obey your mighty injunctions. We are guilty of thinking for ourselves and following ye government's instructions rather than Your Direction. Shall we go to the Rack Room or the Whipping Post Room for our punishment?


N2EY: "I bring it up because it's relevant. You say you "dropped it" - does that mean you admit you were wrong in 1999?"

M'lord Mightiness, we beginners are so unworthy of anything. In your eyes we are all WRONG unless we accept your directions and guidance.


N2EY: "I wonder how the ARRL VEC who gave your exam earlier this year would feel if they knew of your accusations of fraud..."

Aye, m'lord, we lowly peasants who are guilty of blasphemy shall be drawn and quartered, but without benefit of blue paint as on William Wallace of Scotland.


N2EY: "But I don't insist on mentioning what I do for work in practically every posting, as you do."

Aye, m'lord executioner, when not working for Consolidated Rail Corporation you give all to the Church of St. Hiram (the Magnificent). We stand in supplication to your greatness, asking only to be allowed to live. <hat in hand, bows deeply with pleading eyes averted>

<cut to long shot of backlighted throne, SFX to add twinkling halo to His Majesty>


N2EY: "The subject is "CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'". Considering your anti-code tirades here, it seems my comments are right on the subject."

Aye, m'lord executioner, we hear and obey and accept Your Magnificent's punishment.


N2EY: "Who are you to say what I should write, Len? Don't you believe in free speech?"

Aye, m'lord High Judge, we veterans of military service are unworthy of anything but supreme censure before your Magnificence as Commander In Chief of Everything.

N2EY: "I don't think you can do so without the personal insults, though."

Aye, m'lord executioner, we poor peasants who have transgressed your godly directions shall be put to death...or forced to hear W1AW bulletins on CW until Eternity stops.

<long shot of rear of baronial hall as three burly guards drag the peasant out the main door...fade to exterior shot of countryside as a dark storm appears and rain begins to fall><sad, dramatic music in bkgrnd> <super The End and take crawl to credits>

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KG4RRN on November 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Hi everyone and thank you for using your first amendment rights, do you realize over in counrties like North Korea,and yes, our old friend Iran,
the people there do not have the freedom to transmit, unless they have permission daily from the governmnet,
and we cannot talk to them.
What a great country this is, huh?
Just in Pakistan last week, numerous press outlets, which include licensed TV and radio (I think I said radio) stations are off the air, because their leaders suspected terrorists were using their freedom of speech as a terror weapon? What comes around goes around...
I have been bitten by the bug of radio since I was in
junior high, why did I wait so long to become a ham at 42? I enjoy my privilages, and don't understand why all the fuss.
What I really enjoy is the other hams who I can talk to, and ask questions and decide which band we can try to talk on next. I love looking at old radios, new radios, and all radios.Granted, it takes money to be in this hobby, and I have met nothing but great people who sacrifice their time, and sometimes labor to help one another in whatever they are doing in this hobby and service.
We owe our radio ancestors this one obligation:
Our station and ourselves should be ready to assist our fellow man in any time of peril.
Some may take this seriously, some not, but this is
like it or not, an ever-evolving and changing hobby and if you can't stand it, sell me, or thousands of others who want to play in this hobby, your equipment and get out of it.
I run 4 VHF nets, and I am active in ARES.
This hobby has forced me to learn stuff I never thought I could learn, but amazingly enough have learned. And one of those lessons is : stick with the winners, cause the losers won't help you.
Being whiners is not adult behavior, and you have VFOs to turn, so I will leave you with this thought:
The equipment I am using today, would have been looked at 40 years ago as something not invented yet.
I am sure the forum editors get tired of the same rants from a bunch of sticks in the mud.
SO press the key and start sending, or the PTT button.
73 all, God Bless America and a Salute to our Veterans of all strips !
Freedom Isn't Free !
A Fellow Ham/Soldier
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by RADIO123US on November 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY said "Len, if you're not interested in Morse Code, and have no problem with others using Morse Code, why are you even commenting in this thread?"

Most of the anti-code bigots are not satisfied with the fact that they no longer have to WORK to get their license...some have to try and prove to the world that they actually deserve their welfare licenses...in the case of Len though, I think it's actually some form of dementia ...
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Well Jim since he was the one who was teaching the class then I had no choice at the time but to take his advice and since there wasnt any internet to view history I had to sit in with the idea. But in order to get on in life with the radio license of the days I tried at least to pass the exam. Unfortunately didnt have the money for the radio's and just stepped aside for a short time to study more on it..still it was worth it..at least I got on the air and didnt waste time woring stations,even without using the code. In 28 years of travel it came in handy and enjoyed it alot. Code never set me back then and I still love listening to it. When I can in my job.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N6HPX writes: "Well Jim since he was the one who was teaching the class then I had no choice at the time but to take his advice and since there wasnt any internet to view history I had to sit in with the idea."

There were books.

But that's all ancient history. All I'm trying to do is set the record straight. Your elmer made some mistakes, that's all.

73 es GL de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Well again as stated thats what I went by and was busy studying the other parts of the license, which I tried for back in 1972..unfortuanetly didnt have the funds to buy the gear. He taught the class for over 10 years so I figured he knew what he was doing.
As you mentioned its in the past and have been here for 28 yrs, and passed <very proudly> both the 5 and the 13 wpm without missing a letter. Someday soon will buy a portable rig to carry but have to be careful in some countries as they love to snag radios.
Operated from Diego Garcia and also the Philippines since I been traveling and was well worth it, since I felt it was neccessary to get the ticket. If you know what I mean..
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KV1M on November 11, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
KG4RRN,

Nice comparisons there, picking the despotic nations as a comparison to the US.

That's right along the lines of claiming the US is way better than Sudan so we are the greatest!

You do know that in Europe we don't need permission to transmit, right?
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KW4JX on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
As I've said before -'Xenophobia'
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
KV1M wrote:

"You do know that in Europe we don't need permission to transmit, right?"

Actually, we do need permission to transmit. That's what licenses and regulations are all about.

When permission is granted, it is usually very limited in terms of frequency, radiated power, emission type, etc.

Try transmitting without permission on a frequency assigned to broadcasting, public safety or the military, and see what happens. Be warned that it won't be pretty!

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY: "Who are you to say what I should write, Len? Don't you believe in free speech?"

AF6AY: "Aye, m'lord High Judge, we veterans of military service are unworthy of anything but supreme censure before your Magnificence as Commander In Chief of Everything."

N2EY: "I don't think you can do so without the personal insults, though."

AF6AY: "Aye, m'lord executioner, we poor peasants who have transgressed your godly directions shall be put to death...or forced to hear W1AW bulletins on CW until Eternity stops."

Thanks for proving my point for me, Len.

Here's your sign.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA4DOU on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Why do you all keep feeding this guy?
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Waiter....Check please!
Waiter: Is there something wrong sir?
Customer responds........Yeah, there IS a problem.....

There is a Dead horse in my lobster bisque!!!!!

EJECT,EJECT,EJECT......
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KG6WLS on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
LOL

:-)
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by DUALGATEMOSFET on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
A new test element needs to be added. Element 0- a psychiatric evaluation to ensure that all licensees are mentally fit to operate radio equipment on the international airwaves. Licensees like AF6AY are an embarrassment to the United States. Whenever AF6AY is heard on the air, the rest of the world's hams must think we Americans are a bunch of fruitcakes.

73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
The "Epitaxial" One
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KB3HJK on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I keep hearing on this site how easy the Extra Class test is. Well, I guess you guys saying that are just smarter than me, because it doesn't seem that easy to me. It's not insurmountable, either, but it certainly requires a bit of applied study, as it should.

Yes, there are extremly smart people in AR, and many formally trained engineers. But, that is not a requirement to hold a license. Having a decent level of electronics technology knowledge was what I always though was required for the top class.

I'd like to see a copy of an older test, before all the "dumbing down".
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by DUALGATEMOSFET on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"I'd like to see a copy of an older test, before all the "dumbing down"."

If you want to compare today's Extra exam to the "old", you would have to look at both the Advanced and the Extra exams of the bygone era. Today's Extra exam is a watered-down consolidation of the old Advanced and Extra exams. The Advanced exam was the more comprehensive of the two. If you passed the Advanced exam, the written exam for Extra was all downhill from there. What made the Extra the highest class of license was not the written exam. It was the 20wpm code exam, quite a jump up from 13.

73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
The "Epitaxial" One
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KB3HJK on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
OK, point taken. The Advanced was a more comprehensive test. I wish they just left it that way, then. I'm all for the top test being a true test, reflecting hard work to pass it.

That said, the impression I get from some posts here is that any dim-witted moron can just waltz in and breeze through the Extra test. That is simply overstatement.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"I'd like to see a copy of an older test, before all the "dumbing down"."

You can't see the old tests themselves, because FCC kept them secret.

What you *can* see are the study guides FCC published, and which ARRL reprinted (with answers) in the old License Manuals. The study guides indicated the areas of knowledge that would be on the test, not the actual questions and answers. In addition, you were expected to know the regulations.

The study guide for the 1963 General, Technician and Conditional consisted of 108 essay-type questions. The actual test was in multiple-choice format, though.

Here's a sample of the questions in the 1963 study guide for General, also used for Tech and Conditional:

17. Describe the adjustment procedure for proper neutralization in a radio-frequency power amplifier using an r.f. indicator coupled to the plate tank circuit.

21. Draw diagrams of, and identify by name, variable-frequency and crystal controlled oscillator circuits such as the Hartley, Colpitts, Pierce, etc. (The
answer to this single question involves 11 diagrams over a page and a half.)

29. A low-drift crystal for the 3500-4000 kc. amateur band is guaranteed by a manufacturer to be calibrated to within 0.04% of its specified frequency.
Desiring to operate as close to the lower band limit of 3500 kc. as safely as possible, for what whole-number kilocycle frequency should you order your crystal, allowing 1 kc. additional for variations from temperature and circuit constants?

43. Draw a simple schematic diagram of two r.f. amplifier stages using triode tubes, showing the neutralizing circuits, link coupling between stages and
between output and antenna system, and a keying connection in the negative high-voltage lead including a key-click filter.

66. What operating characteristics distinguissh the electron-coupled type oscillator with regard to frequency stability?

86. What is the formula for determining the characteristic impedance of an air-insulated parallel conductor transmission line?

93. Draw diagrams of, and identify by name, simple high- and low-pass constant-k filter circuits. Show both pi-section and T-section types, balanced and unbalanced.

96. Draw diagrams of, and identify by name, simple high- and low-pass m-derived filter circuits. Show both series and shunt pi-section and T-section types.

104. What could cause downward deflection of the antenna current ammeter of a transmitter when modulation is applied?

107. Draw a schematic diagram of a combination heterodyne frequency meter and monitor.

(These are just a sample).

And yet it was in 1963 that the FCC decided that the General test was inadequate for a full-privileges license. They began the process of implementing the changes that would become known as "incentive
licensing", which went into effect in 1968.

The 1963 Extra study guide consisted of 239 sample questions (more than double the size of the General) and was more in-depth and technical than
the General.

73 de Jim, N2EY









 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by DUALGATEMOSFET on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
A more accurate statement would be that any person of average intelligence could pass the Extra exam with one or two weeks of preparation. Memorize the mathematical formulas and know how to apply them. Go through the Gordon West book 2 or 3 times. If you familiarize yourself with the pool and know how calculate the math, you will come out of the session telling yourself "gee, that wasn't that bad".

Of course, the proper way to do this is to be thorough and learn the material. The ARRL Extra Class License Manual, read and studied the right way will not only prepare you to pass the exam, but you will learn something in the process. And after all, isn't learning a big part of this hobby in the first place?

It is also possible to pass the test without ever reading or learning anything. Taking enough practice exams on the Internet will prepare you to pass the exam without knowing anything or calculating anything. This is not recommended, but believe me, it is done.

73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
The "Epitaxial" One
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"If you want to compare today's Extra exam to the "old", you would have to look at both the Advanced and the Extra exams of the bygone era."

Depends which era you look at. From 1953 until 1967, the Advanced was closed to new issues, and the Extra of that time included all that had been in the old Advanced/Class A plus more new stuff.

"Today's Extra exam is a watered-down consolidation of the old Advanced and Extra exams."

What they did was to combine the question pools, take out anything that wasn't valid anymore with the closing of the Advanced license, and add 10 questions so the Extra became 50 instead of 40 questions.

1967 to 2000 Extras had to take two writtens beyond the General, post-2000 Extras have to only take one.

"The Advanced exam was the more comprehensive of the two. If you passed the Advanced exam, the written exam for Extra was all downhill from there. What made the Extra the highest class of license was not the written exam. It was the 20wpm code exam, quite a jump up from 13."

I disagree. Extra may have seemed easier, for a couple reasons.

Getting to Extra meant passing the Advanced first, so there was no getting around the Advanced.

Until the mid 1970s, anyone with 13 wpm code credit could try the Advsnced. But to even try the Extra written required not only passing the Advanced but 20 wpm code credit and two years' experience as a General or higher. So those taking the Extra usually had more experience, which would make the test seem easier.

My own history is a case in point.

First time I went to take the General test (early summer 1968), I didn't quite make the 13 wpm code. (FCC man couldn't read my writing).

FCC examiner gave me credit for 5 wpm and let me take the written, which meant I had simultaneous Novice and Tech licenses, and all I needed to do was come back and pass 13 wpm.

So I went home and practiced code and block-printing until I could copy 18 wpm bulletins from W1AW beginning to end. Took a couple weeks and I was back before the summer ended. Passed 13 wpm easy and got the General.

But before I left, FCC examiner says "why not try Advanced while you're here? No additional fee and no loss if you don't pass." I hadn't planned or studied for it, but no ham in their right mind back then would have said no to The Man From FCC, so I sat down, tried the Advanced written, and passed.

It didn't seem hard at all.

So I went home with an Advanced instead of a General. (Or rather, I went home to wait for the license to show up in the mail).

Two years later, as soon as the waiting period was up, I was back for the Extra.

In the summer of 1968 I was 14 years old. That was the summer between 8th and 9th grades for me.

73 de Jim, N2EY



 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KB3HJK on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"The ARRL Extra Class License Manual, read and studied the right way will not only prepare you to pass the exam, but you will learn something in the process. And after all, isn't learning a big part of this hobby in the first place? " - That's what I'm reading, and yes, learning is a big part. I already have HF privileges, I want to KNOW the material when I get Extra, not just pass a test with Gordo.

N2EY - I'm convinced. If that's a sample of the questions, it goes into far more depth than today's test. Good post.

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The Old FCC given EXTRA prepared me well fot my 1st phone commercial as well as getting a E.E. degree.

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
KB3HJK posted:

"I keep hearing on this site how easy the Extra Class test is. Well, I guess you guys saying that are just smarter than me, because it doesn't seem that easy to me. It's not insurmountable, either, but it certainly requires a bit of applied study, as it should."

I will agree with you, Kevin. But, in this environment of e-ham.net where most of the participants took their tests long ago, their 'recollections' have been way-overshadowed by testosterone-fueled egos basking in a glow of self-righteous superiority. :-)

Having taken all the required tests for an amateur radio license on 25 February 2007, I found it neither the 'Simple Simon' kind of thing nor anything close to formal-class Finals or even Mid-Term tests. It is just a test for an essentially-avocational radio activity (which some of its members have glorified into some kind of transcendental experience that only their mighty magnificences can pass).

Taken in a cold-blooded fashion of examination of an examination, I found the multiple-choice questions and answers to be well crafted. I'm not claiming to be an 'expert' on that, just looking at it from some life experience of taking many different kinds of tests, not solely about 'radio' or electronics. The QPC laid some nice 'traps' here and there for the unwary or over-confident; a few questions required careful reading of the way the questions were asked in order to pick the correct answer. All in all, it seemed to me to be comprehensive enough. My only critique would be in apparent emphasis on space communications considering that such is a niche activity within modern U.S. amateur radio. No sweat, I passed those, too.

Answering questions in the isolated, formal setting usually found requires an ability to focus on each question and search memory for the correct answer. Some can cross-connect their memories easily but most ordinary humans have to work at it (as I do). A good example of the former is the contestants on the ABC-TV show "Jeopardy" featuring a bewildering array of subjects; those that make it to air have extraordinary capability for association on most subjects. My wife and I are fans of that show, regularly watching after supper, and also engaging in a friendly rivalry on answers. :-) Mostly we learn new, interesting things on a variety of subjects. It is fun to watch and - very indirectly - to participate.

Test sessions are a different environment. It isn't entertainment. Questions are one-on-one challenges of whoever wrote the questions to the person taking the test, challenges on knowledge of the subjects. Correct answers of the minimum number are rewarded with a license, grade, or other permission from authorities to do something, such as driving. In the entirety of radio regulation in the USA (since 1912), a radio operator and/or station license was never an academic achievement; none of the radio regulatory agencies here were ever chartered as academic institutions. An amateur radio license of any class doesn't denote 'expertise' in amateur radio or even the wider world of all radio-electronics. It is just a regulatory tool used by a chartered-by-law-of-Congress FCC to regulate ALL civil radio in the USA.

KB3HJK: "Yes, there are extremly smart people in AR, and many formally trained engineers. But, that is not a requirement to hold a license."

I generally agree with you there, Kevin. :-) I will challenge the 'smartness' of some, though, especially
those gutless wonders who hide behind pseudonyms and spout emotional fighting-word filth. :-)

I don't consider myself 'smart' but am competent enough to design electronics, including radio. That was
my career choice based on my Army experience. Long before I got my degree I was already assigned design responsibility. I kept passing the ultimate 'test' -receiving a regular paycheck. It's all in how one applies themselves.

KB3HJK: "Having a decent level of electronics technology knowledge was what I always though was required for the top class."

I'll agree with you again. Some others will disagree, citing their many, many years of being granted a license and prodigious (self-described) 'experience' (doggedly perusing every single ARRL text the League ever published and hardly touching anything else).

I will disagree only with the 'top class' label even though that is the common concept in U.S. amateur radio. Amateur Extra class is essentially a political construct, lobbied for and used as a Title of superiority in the past. Just a growth of such Rank, Title, and Perquisite that resulted in the maze of six classes of license that existed prior to the year 2000. Artificial Class Distinction. Amateur radio is a HOBBY, not a profession, not a guild, not a union, not a craft. Hobbies are supposed to be fun things to do, not to use in tired old boasts of "I'm better than you, nyah, nyah." :-)

I went for Extra for several reasons: The convenience no restrictions on band or mode); it was possible to do, legally; it proved to certain others that I was able to do it...even if called 'babbling incoherently with Alzheimers in some local nursing home!'; it lets me operate on more of the EM spectrum than a commercial (operator or station) license allows as a civilian. :-)

KB3HJK: "I'd like to see a copy of an older test, before all the "dumbing down"."

Heh heh heh heh. You aren't going to see that because such is an automatic balloon-pop to some old, inflated egos...or, as it was once told to me not too long ago, "You don't have the smarts to understand it!" :-) I took, and passed in one exam session, my First 'Phone license 51 1/2 years ago...at an FCC Field Office in Chicago, 90 miles away. No privatization then and the closest thing to 'published answers' were found in a series of Q&A books (which my home town didn't have). I don't know how old Dick Bash
is but he hadn't established his training schools that far back. Some emotional critics of myself challenged that "the Army taught me everything I needed" (in the four year period prior to that test). Only partly true. The military never required any civilian licenses to operate their high-powered communications
equipment nor did they have any regulation from the FCC. They still don't.

I can't remember - exactly - the questions or answers from back then. It's really irrelevant. Back then my first use of that commercial license was in broadcasting. The federally-issued license was then just a left-over political construct since one had to learn on-the-job with the specific equipment at a station. The FCC test couldn't possibly cover the variety of equipment used then. Eventually that First 'Phone got lumped into the 'GROL' and then the GROL was made lifetime with no need to renew it. <shrug> Realistic. There's no point in having all that Rank, Status, Privelege in commercial radio other than
making a business profit. In radio amateurism there seems to be a built-in NEED for Rank, Status, Privilege, and any other perk that can be achieved to self-rationalize a hobby and make the Class Conscious amateur some kind of all-seeing, all-knowing guru of everything, the most noble of any human.

Sigh. Tsk. Federally-assigned Class Distinction. Real 'comradship' in a hobby! :-)

73, Len AF6AY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY: "Who are you to say what I should write, Len? Don't you believe in free speech?"

A long time ago, myself and millions of others served in the military of the United States to Preserve the Constitution of the United States that GUARANTEES that free speech. I still believe in it. So much so that I swore an oath in 1952 to defend that Constitution. The terms of that Oath are expressed in a quote (author unknown) put into a newsletter we get about our home town classmates, edited by (retired) Chief Petty Officer Lyman 'Woody' Woodman, USN (1965-1993):

"A veteran - whether active duty, retired, or national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America,' for an amount of 'up to and including my life."

Here's another quote:

"Pity the man who has no values worth defending with his Life." - John Stuart Mills

In the November issue of our newsletter Woody includes an Honor Roll of veterans and some still in the service. That Roll is 5 pages long, covering all military branches, ranks, and times of service from 1937 to the present. A few are marked killed in action, a few still missing in action and fewer as prisoners of war. That's not a big territory, my home town area, just barely reaches 250 thousand or so in population now. It IS typical of territories all over the USA and its possessions, past and present.

Sunday, November 10, 2007 was Veteran's Day in the USA. I didn't spend it on any radio. Like other veterans did, I took part in Rememberance of what WE did. Not for self-glory or any other personal ego trips, just a quiet sense of comradeship. I'm proud to say that I served and my name is on that list that Woody publishes, just one of many of US who did the same. WE all believed in Free Speech and WE all 'wrote that check.'

You never served in the military of the United States. I don't hold that against you. Every branch is now voluntary and has been for 34 years. What WE veterans CAN hold against you is your air of superiority such as your arrogant episode elsewhere where you claimed I 'insulted a veteran' just because he favored morse code mode and was a veteran...and I didn't favor morse code yet was a veteran before him. You don't understand that WE Veterans have EARNED the right to talk to as we do to other veterans. You confuse LIFE with morsemanship.

All you can do is pretend you 'know' what being a veteran is like. You don't know. You can't. Pretend all you want but you've never 'written that check.'

N2EY: "I don't think you can do so without the personal insults, though. Thanks for proving my point for me, Len."

Nowhere in any dictionary, not even on some tablets taken down from a mountain, is it stated that one 'cannot' disagree with another on some facet of a HOBBY activity lest it be perceived as some kind of 'personal insult.' You have managed to confuse or delude yourself as to your opinion being The Word on everything...and then get all angry and accusatory about 'personal insults' directed at yourself. Nowhere is there any requirement, nor is any oath needed to be sworn to provide yourself with emotional sustenance to make you feel superior. If you want to appear arrogant and all-knowledgeable, be prepared to take the heat. Especailly so in venues like this one where MANY have differing opinions.

N2EY: "Here's your sign."

Here's yours: <UPREAISED MIDDLE FINGER>

Leonard H. Anderson, veteran USA
ex-RA16408336 (1952-1956), ex-ER16408336 (1956-1960)
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by RADIO123US on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY said "even if called 'babbling incoherently with Alzheimers in some local nursing home!'; it lets me operate on more of the EM spectrum than a commercial (operator or station) license allows as a civilian"

Looking at Len's postings above, I believe he's already "babbling incoherently".....nuff said...
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by DUALGATEMOSFET on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I like the way this joker goes on and on about being a veteran and writing "the check". Len, were you ever in active combat? Ever see the enemy, Len? Ever get shot at? Ever shoot at the enemy, Len? Ever kill any of them? I doubt it. I did. I wrote "the check" and paid my dues with my blood in the jungles in Nam. I bear the scars to prove it.

73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
The "Epitaxial" One
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Man, do I miss Pattaya beach Tailand!

CON KOOH CUP FELON! mE-TI-DEE SHEROTO
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
DUALGATEMOSFET spoke through a medium and wrote: "I like the way this joker goes on and on about being a veteran and writing "the check". Len, were you ever in active combat? Ever see the enemy, Len? Ever get shot at? Ever shoot at the enemy, Len? Ever kill any of them? I doubt it. I did. I wrote "the check" and paid my dues with my blood in the jungles in Nam."

Dear UNKNOWNSOLDIER,

Thank you for your message. We have saluted your grave at The Tomb of The UNKNOWN Soldier. We regret to inform you that we cannot attend your UNKNOWN Soldier memorial QSO party...since it is at an UNKNOWN date at an UNKNOWN time on an UNKNOWN frequency and we don't know your UNKNOWN callsign. Also, our radios do not operate in ectoplasm mode. Thanks again for your UNKNOWING reply.

[why does this unknown sound like K4YZ? :-) ]

Cordially,
AF6AY
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KV1M on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY wrote in response to what KV1M wrote:

"KV1M wrote:

"You do know that in Europe we don't need permission to transmit, right?"

Actually, we do need permission to transmit. That's what licenses and regulations are all about.

When permission is granted, it is usually very limited in terms of frequency, radiated power, emission type, etc.

Try transmitting without permission on a frequency assigned to broadcasting, public safety or the military, and see what happens. Be warned that it won't be pretty!

73 de Jim, N2EY"


Hihi! You are such a funny guy!
That was not what the thread was about Jim, having trouble following it?


 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KA8YLY on November 12, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I was at a testing session last night (got my extra -woohoo!), about 40 (or more) people taking tests were there. nearly 1/2 of the room were taking their novice tests, several were younger people, including a young girl who couldn't have been more than 12 years old. I still have hope!
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY did nothing wrong. What we have is 'thread-rot'
Once the thread is a beaten dead horse, hams talk about other things.

i have been on Eham since 1993. It happens all the time.

Think of it as Internet graffity. Or better yet, get off the computer and get on the air.

besides N2EY was egged on by the A6--- dude.
The Beaten dead horse is dead. His name was fred.

And fREEDY IS DEAD. Thats what I said. Name the 1970's song. Silly, but well meaning thread grafitty!

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I MEAN 2003 FOR YOU OCD-AR TYPES.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KW4JX on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
All hams are equal, but some are more equal than others
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY wrote: "Having taken all the required tests for an amateur radio license on 25 February 2007, I found it neither the 'Simple Simon' kind of thing nor anything close to formal-class Finals or even Mid-Term tests."

AF6AY: "Taken in a cold-blooded fashion of examination of an examination, I found the multiple-choice questions and answers to be well crafted. I'm not claiming to be an 'expert' on that, just looking at it from some life experience of taking many different kinds of tests, not solely about 'radio' or electronics. The QPC laid some nice 'traps' here and there for the unwary or over-confident; a few questions required careful reading of the way the questions were asked in order to pick the correct answer. All in all, it seemed to me to be comprehensive enough. My only critique would be in apparent emphasis on space communications considering that such is a niche activity within modern U.S. amateur radio. No sweat, I passed those, too."

But you have no experience with the amateur radio exams of the past, Len. Only the tests of 2007, whose question-and-answer pools have been publicly available for years.

AF6AY: "Answering questions in the isolated, formal setting usually found requires an ability to focus on each question and search memory for the correct answer. Some can cross-connect their memories easily but most ordinary humans have to work at it (as I do). A good example of the former is the contestants on the ABC-TV show "Jeopardy" featuring a bewildering array of subjects; those that make it to air have extraordinary capability for association on most subjects. My wife and I are fans of that show, regularly watching after supper, and also engaging in a friendly rivalry on answers. :-) Mostly we learn new, interesting things on a variety of subjects. It is fun to watch and - very indirectly - to participate."

The game would be somewhat different if all possible questions and the correct answers were available beforehand, though.

AF6AY: "Test sessions are a different environment. It isn't entertainment."

It isn't?

AF6AY: "Questions are one-on-one challenges of whoever wrote the questions to the person taking the test, challenges on knowledge of the subjects."

No, just challenges to pick the right answer out of the four choices given.

FCC does not care if the person being tested understands the material thoroughly, sort-of understands it, or simply guesses right. All they have to do is honestly come up with enough right answers and they pass.

AF6Ay: "Correct answers of the minimum number are rewarded with a license, grade, or other permission from authorities to do something, such as driving. In the entirety of radio regulation in the USA (since 1912), a radio operator and/or station license was never an academic achievement; none of the radio regulatory agencies here were ever chartered as academic institutions."

However, earning an amateur radio license was/is considered to be a significant accomplishment when applying to colleges.

AF6AY: "An amateur radio license of any class doesn't denote 'expertise' in amateur radio or even the wider world of all radio-electronics. It is just a regulatory tool used by a chartered-by-law-of-Congress FCC to regulate ALL civil radio in the USA."

You seem to want to downgrade the accomplishments of others, Len.

AF6AY: "I will challenge the 'smartness' of some, though, especially
those gutless wonders who hide behind pseudonyms and spout emotional fighting-word filth. :-)"

You mean like someone who used a variety of screen names when posting to usenet? Someone who makes up insulting nicknames for others simply because they disagree about something?

AF6AY: "I don't consider myself 'smart' but am competent enough to design electronics, including radio."

What amateur radio receivers, transmitters, antennas and/or accessories have you designed and built, Len?

AF6AY: "I will disagree only with the 'top class' label even though that is the common concept in U.S. amateur radio."

The Extra class license includes all the elements of all the other FCC-issued amateur licenses. Therefore, it is the top class.

AF6AY: "Amateur Extra class is essentially a political construct, lobbied for and used as a Title of superiority in the past."

By whom, Len? Who "lobbied" for the Extra? It wasn't ARRL.

The modern version of the Amateur Extra license was created by FCC in 1951, to *replace* the old Class A/Advanced license. The Amateur Extra license has been available ever since then = it has never been closed to new issues. In the first couple of decades of its existence, there was an experience requirement, but that was eliminated more than 30 years ago.

AF6AY: "Just a growth of such Rank, Title, and Perquisite that resulted in the maze of six classes of license that existed prior to the year 2000. Artificial Class Distinction. Amateur radio is a HOBBY, not a profession, not a guild, not a union, not a craft."

Nowhere in Part 97 is the word "hobby" used.

Does the fact that amateurs are not paid mean that there should be no standards, no achievements, no real requirements for amateur radio licensing? You seem to think so.

AF6AY: "Hobbies are supposed to be fun things to do, not to use in tired old boasts of "I'm better than you, nyah, nyah." :-)"

Len, your hobby seems to be doing just that - online.

AF6AY: "I went for Extra for several reasons: The convenience no restrictions on band or mode); it was possible to do, legally; it proved to certain others that I was able to do it...even if called 'babbling incoherently with Alzheimers in some local nursing home!'; it lets me operate on more of the EM spectrum than a commercial (operator or station) license allows as a civilian. :-) "

There's also the fact that the Morse Code requirement had been removed two days before you took the tests.

And there's the fact that back in January of 2000 you publicly announced that you were "going for Extra out of the box":

http://tinyurl.com/c5qyv

Now of course you may say that some time after January 2000 you "changed your mind", but it seems you simply decided to wait. 5 wpm was too much for you - or maybe you just considered *any* Morse Code test, or any license other than the top class, to be beneath you.

After all, you could have gotten a Technician license with no code test any time after Feb 1991. Or any other amateur license issued by FCC with 5 wpm code since 2000. Medical waivers for 13 and 20 wpm code since 1990.


KB3HJK: "I'd like to see a copy of an older test, before all the "dumbing down"."

AF6AY: "Heh heh heh heh. You aren't going to see that because such is an automatic balloon-pop to some old, inflated egos...or, as it was once told to me not too long ago, "You don't have the smarts to understand it!" :-)"

No, that's not right.

You'll not see the old tests because they're not available. They were not publicly available until the 1970s.

You can, however, see the old study guides. I reprinted part of the 1963 General study guide here.
Perhaps I should reprint more.

AF6AY: "I took, and passed in one exam session, my First 'Phone license 51 1/2 years ago...at an FCC Field Office in Chicago, 90 miles away. No privatization then and the closest thing to 'published answers' were found in a series of Q&A books (which my home town didn't have)."

But your first experience with *amateur radio* exams was in February of this year, Len.

Many of those who passed both the First 'Phone and the Amateur Extra, back when both were given by FCC, considered the Amateur Extra to require more knowledge.

AF6AY: "I don't know how old Dick Bash
is but he hadn't established his training schools that
far back."

Dick Bash did not have any schools, Len. Did you mean Gordon West?

AF6AY: "Some emotional critics of myself challenged that "the Army taught me everything I needed" (in the four year period prior to that test). Only partly true. The military never required any civilian licenses to operate their high-powered communications
equipment nor did they have any regulation from the FCC. They still don't."

But the Army did send you to school for electronics, Len. And you got on-the-job training. It's not like you taught yourself radio in order to pass the tests at a young age, or had to pay your own way through colleger or technical school to learn enough to pass the exams.

Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it's a different thing from, say, the eight-year-old who passed the Amateur Extra back in the 1990s, when it required 20 wpm code and five written exams.

AF6AY: "I can't remember - exactly - the questions or answers from back then. It's really irrelevant. Back then my first use of that commercial license was in broadcasting."

But you didn't even try to get an amateur license until this year.

AF6AY: "The federally-issued license was then just a left-over political construct since one had to learn on-the-job with the specific equipment at a station. The FCC test couldn't possibly cover the variety of equipment used then."

Didn't have to. What mattered was understanding the principles and the regulations.

AF6AY: "Eventually that First 'Phone got lumped into the 'GROL' and then the GROL was made lifetime with no need to renew it. <shrug> Realistic. There's no point in having all that Rank, Status, Privelege in commercial radio other than
making a business profit."

So you think there should be no operator licenses at all?

AF6AY: "In radio amateurism there seems to be a built-in NEED for Rank, Status, Privilege, and any other perk that can be achieved to self-rationalize a hobby and make the Class Conscious amateur some kind of all-seeing, all-knowing guru of everything, the most noble of any human."

Well, considering how many times you've told us how you got Extra all in one sitting....

The reason for multiple amateur radio license classes is so that people don't have to learn everything required for full privileges all at once just to get started. It's so people can learn at their own pace.

It's not like everyone who becomes a ham has a background in electronics. For some of us, ham radio was the beginning.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by AE5EH on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
From W8JI:

"There will always be a small percentage of people fascinated by esoteric things like radio or building things, but it is a smaller and smaller cross section because of social changes. Most people want everything without work or effort including raising kids or learning anything they don't have to learn.

We can't fix or change society inside our little group."

Sums things well, without a lot of superfluous babbling or flowery rhetoric. One of the better points made in the thread.

73

de ae5eh
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N4VHR on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

You will see the same arguments in most any sport/hobby/service as it evolves. Hunters constantly argue over the fact that someone would rather continue to hunt with a traditional longbow or recurve rather than a modern compound bow. Or use a flintlock instead of a modern muzzleloader. It shouldn't matter!

I got my Extra ticket the "hard way" with 20 WPM code. I still use CW 90% of the time. I just enjoy it. If you got a no-code ticket and don't use code, I don't care ... welcome to Ham Radio! Have fun! Use whatever legal mode you like and are licensed for.

Let's not argue amongst ourselves, let's do what we can to bring more new folks into the fold...

Bill
N4VHR
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with the increase but from what I heard on the last arnewsline there isnt many coming in the only increase is amongst ourselves and we also lost alot..some either from anger or just retireing from it all...
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N4VHR, I AGREE with about 50 percent.
EHAM IS INTERNET,NOT HAM RADIO.
The INTERNET is a cess pool of psychic puss produced from Vancomycine resistant staff infection.(AKA MRSA)

EHAM IS FAR BETTER THAN MOST INTERNET SLEASE.
Except for a few hams, none of us hams have criminal
records. Some of the insults are funny.(then again I like mold)

LOOK AT SOME EHAM POST'S AS A TECHNICAL ''NATIONAL LAMPOON"

BtW...for the record, I have far more respect for URBANE GORILLA AND RADIO123US THAN that 6 land J.I.
Joe wanna-be shmoe that heckles N2EH. N2EH is a GREAT HAM. He is an excellant ham and a decent man. He outwits MR. 6 land comic book worrier..

It is best not to comment. This EHAM PSYCOPATHOLIC stuff are things we cannot say on air!

I HAVE NOT BEEN THE SAME SINCE 9/11. So I vent with jokes here too.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N6HPX writes:

"but from what I heard on the last arnewsline there isnt many coming in the only increase is amongst ourselves and we also lost alot..some either from anger or just retireing from it all..."

Let's look at some numbers:

The following are the total number of current unexpired FCC-issued amateur licenses held by individuals on the dates named.

This means they don't include clubs, military, RACES or other station-only licenses. Also does not include licenses that are expired but in the 2 year grace period. (www.hamdata.com included licenses in the grace period).

On May 14, 2000, just after the restructuring: 674,792

On April 30, 2003, near the post-2000 peak: 686,862

On February 22, 2007, just before Morse Code testing ended: 654,680

Yesterday, November 12, 2007: 655,577

So while we haven't gained huge numbers of new hams
since February 22, the slow decline from 2003 to 2007 has been replaced by a small amount of growth. Whether the growth will be sustained in the long term remains to be seen.

You can get up-to-date license numbers by
going to the ARRL website and searching on "license counts". Licenses are broken down by class and state/territory. Updated daily.

If you check the numbers daily, though, you will sometimes see big changes from day to day as the FCC processes applications. It's not unusual to see changes of several hundred in just one day.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
As for the silent keys being part of the figure it seems like its a small percentage as well, I believe the QST magazine might be publishing only parts of what the families send to them. I mentioned some time back its a wait and see game to see whether this change in code and others is actually going to bring in new members and if you heard the program it sounded to me like it has not done that much, but again wait a few more months and see if you really have that many knocking on our doors on this. I did have some wannabe hams some time back on my ships and it was before the changes,and after they saw the drop on the morse requirement they changed there mind. As if they didn't really like the changes. For some it really was a matter of principles.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KB3HJK on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Matter of principle"

Well said. I was determined to get a general ticket before the code was dropped for that very reason.

Also, changes in society have more of an impact than people would think. It was stated earlier in this thread that electronics stores are in short supply. Many hams live in apartments now, like me, and just don't have space to really get into the "hardware" like the old days. I cannot wait for the day when I have a real "shack", with old radios, scopes, and all the rest. But economic concerns put restrictions on how deep one can go in the hobby, my job is in a city and commuting from the wide open spaces would be insainity, or at least masochistic.

I really lament the lack of places I can drive to on a Sat. morning and get electronics - radio "stuff". Pls don't mention hamfests, a huge dissapointment in my opinion.

Kevin
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KB3HJK on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Matter of principle"

Well said. I was determined to get a general ticket before the code was dropped for that very reason.

Also, changes in society have more of an impact than people would think. It was stated earlier in this thread that electronics stores are in short supply. Many hams live in apartments now, like me, and just don't have space to really get into the "hardware" like the old days. I cannot wait for the day when I have a real "shack", with old radios, scopes, and all the rest. But economic concerns put restrictions on how deep one can go in the hobby, my job is in a city and commuting from the wide open spaces would be insainity, or at least masochistic.

I really lament the lack of places I can drive to on a Sat. morning and get electronics - radio "stuff". Pls don't mention hamfests, a huge dissapointment in my opinion.

Kevin
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Changes has always been a problem on people and it was one the fellow shipmates didnt really like they wanted to have it in place as well and it dorve them away from the license. Matter of principle was what drove me to go out and pass the 5 and 13 wpm code exams. It was either pass the tests or not operate the radio, and I wasn't gonna sit around and wait for it not come along. That was time for me well spent using my $5000 worth of radio's and antennas and have them gather dust. My brother who was a novice for a few years saw me come home with some Yaesu's<FT7B. and Azden's<PCS2000>from Japan and inspired me to go out and get the license. I had the goal in mind and it came my direction and inspired me to do just that..worth the effort and i put all my radio's and antennas on the air, and worked DX from the other side of the world on the receiving end..from Doego Garcia and Philippines. Worth the inspiration.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Changes has always been a problem on people and it was one the fellow shipmates didnt really like they wanted to have it in place as well and it dorve them away from the license. Matter of principle was what drove me to go out and pass the 5 and 13 wpm code exams. It was either pass the tests or not operate the radio, and I wasn't gonna sit around and wait for it not come along. That was time for me well spent using my $5000 worth of radio's and antennas and have them gather dust. My brother who was a novice for a few years saw me come home with some Yaesu's<FT7B. and Azden's<PCS2000>from Japan and inspired me to go out and get the license. I had the goal in mind and it came my direction and inspired me to do just that..worth the effort and i put all my radio's and antennas on the air, and worked DX from the other side of the world on the receiving end..from Doego Garcia and Philippines. Worth the inspiration.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY: "Who are you to say what I should write, Len? Don't you believe in free speech?"

AF6AY: "A long time ago..."

It's a simple yes-or-no question, Len. You wrote a big pile of words to avoid answering it.

AF6AY: "Sunday, November 10, 2007 was Veteran's Day in the USA."

November 10, 2007 was a Saturday, Len.

November 11, 2007, was a Sunday, and it was Veterans Day. Also Armistice Day, remembering the end of World War 1.

AF6AY: "You never served in the military of the United States."

How do you know for sure?

And what does it matter? You'd behave the same way no matter what military service I had.

AF6AY: " I don't hold that against you."

Your behavior indicates that you do.

AF6AY: "What WE veterans CAN hold against you is your air of superiority such as your arrogant episode elsewhere where you claimed I 'insulted a veteran' just because he favored morse code mode and was a veteran...and I didn't favor morse code yet was a veteran before him."

Where did I claim that, Len? Show us.

You insult just about everyone who disagrees with you on-line, Len. It's what you do. Whether they are veterans or not, if they disagree with you or point out a mistake you made, you insult them and make fun of them.


AF6AY: "You don't understand that WE Veterans have EARNED the right to talk to as we do to other veterans."

Sounds to me like you have several levels of "freedom of speech" - one for what you can say, one for what other veterans can say, one for what nonveterans can say, etc.

As for "insulting a veteran", you've done that enough times that I'm not sure which incident you refer to.
For example, is it this one:

http://tinyurl.com/yxq3rr

where you referred to a Navy veteran as "Herr Breakup" and an Air Force veteran as "the warm-hearted convivial stormtrooper"?

Or is it this one:

http://tinyurl.com/3ygllb

where you told an Air Force veteran who had also served the federal government overseas to "shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel"?

Or maybe this one, where you told off a US Coast Guard *radio operator* for relating his experiences in an emergency:

http://tinyurl.com/27fbwe

There are lots of others. Which did you mean?

AF6AY: "All you can do is pretend you 'know' what being a veteran is like. You don't know. You can't. Pretend all you want but you've never 'written that check.' "

Len, I don't pretend about things like that.

Give us an example where I said I know what being a veteran is like. I don't think you can.

That's another part of your online game - you make all sorts of claims about what other people have supposedly said and done, but cannot back them up with actual quotes, links, etc.

And btw, while we're talking about pretending:

At the end of:

http://tinyurl.com/27fbwe

you give a description of being at the receiving end of an artillery barrage.

But in:

http://tinyurl.com/2tpq2l

it turns out that your description is not from your actual experience, but from what others had told you.
How about that!

Then there's the matter of the distance from the Soviet Union to Tokyo, and the TU-95 Bear bombers. You sure were angry that I pointed out your mistakes on that subject.

I can post links to that exchange if anyone is interested...

N2EY: "I don't think you can do so without the personal insults, though. Thanks for proving my point for me, Len."

AF6AY: "Nowhere in any dictionary, not even on some tablets taken down from a mountain, is it stated that one 'cannot' disagree with another on some facet of a HOBBY activity lest it be perceived as some kind of 'personal insult.'"

You can disagree all you want, Len. The thing is, when you disagree with someone online, you insult them even if they don't insult you. It's what you do. Plenty of examples right here on eham. You don't discuss the issue of the disagreement; you just attack the person who disagrees.

I've had many online disagreements with other folks that remained civil and well mannered. You don't seem to be capable of that sort of dialogue, Len. It's not just me you have a problem with, either - anyone who disagrees with you online becomes a target.

AF6AY: "You have managed to confuse or delude yourself as to your opinion being The Word on everything...and then get all angry and accusatory about 'personal insults' directed at yourself."

Where have I done that, Len? Show us some examples.

I don't think you can.

N2EY: "Here's your sign."

AF6AY: "Here's yours: <UPREAISED MIDDLE FINGER>"

"Upreaised"?

Why not try actually discussing the issues without the insults, Len? "Here's your sign" was a joke - but apparently you can't see the humor...

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N6HPX writes:

"I believe the QST magazine might be publishing only parts of what the families send to them."

Why? Do you have any evidence?

QST only publishes Silent Keys that are properly documented. FCC will only cancel licenses if the death of the licensee is is properly documented. This is done because of some not-so-funny "practical jokes" played in the past.

N6HPX: "I mentioned some time back its a wait and see game to see whether this change in code and others is actually going to bring in new members and if you heard the program it sounded to me like it has not done that much, but again wait a few more months and see if you really have that many knocking on our doors on this."

In the short term, a slow decline has been turned into a slow increase.

It's too soon to know the long term. Note that after the 2000 rules changes, there were three years of increase, then decline.

N6HPX: "I did have some wannabe hams some time back on my ships and it was before the changes,and after they saw the drop on the morse requirement they changed there mind. As if they didn't really like the changes. For some it really was a matter of principles."

Which principles?

IMHO, the big problem is lack of publicity. Most people aren't interested in "radio for its own sake", regardless of the license requirements or equipment cost. What we need to do is to get the word to those few who would be interested.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA4KCN on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY "So while we haven't gained huge numbers of new hams since February 22, the slow decline from 2003 to 2007 has been replaced by a small amount of growth. Whether the growth will be sustained in the long term remains to be seen."

Jim thank you for your comments on this thread. It appears to be an understatement to say we have not gained huge numbers since elimination of code testing. Any marketing or advertising campaign produces its greatest yields at the outset. It is rather easy to predict therefore the marginal increase in licensees will soon reverse itself. Despite the Fcc's public position on the matter, those in favor of maintance will be vindicated as the service will be left with no greater influence from increased numbers. What will remain is a pool of less qualified operators most being effectively deprived and never experiencing all that amateur radio has to offer. The abolishment decision will be shown to have been foolish considering the gain to the service along with the opportunity cost for our new licensees.

73 de Russ
WA4KCN
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
YES...BACK ON SUBJECT.

HAM RADIO is not in the average pedestrian lexicon....period! CB,FRS,and GMRS IS what THE AVERGAE
ADAPOSY DISPRORTIONED,AND EVERYBODY ELSE thinks HAM RADIO HAS evolved in to!

When SPUTNICK went into space , The U.S. polico's panicked. Tons of money was thrown into technical and Vocational High SCHOOls (I went to Brookland Tech H.S)

Personal computers were 10 years away! So technoid kids when into Radio electronic,s. That was where the money was. Ham Radio was the hobby as a gateway to a good job!

Up until the 1970's, Ham radio was an earned privalage.Many today think it is a cival right.

The ARRL as well as others could make BDCST video's.
Commercal time is dirt cheap from 1am-6am, Hyperactive insomiac kids will see the 60 second spots and multi-hour informercials could helped.


 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
WA4KCN writes:

"It appears to be an understatement to say we have not gained huge numbers since elimination of code testing."

Agreed, but it's still pretty early in the game.

Consider this, too:

Suppose the average amateur radio "career" is 50 years. Sure, some will be longer, but others will be shorter.

If the average ham is licensed 50 years total before becoming an SK or otherwise losing interest, that means that we'll lose 2% of our numbers per year. 2% of 650,000 hams is 13,000, which means 13,000 new hams per year - over 1000 per month - just to break even.

If the attrition is, say, 3% per year, the break-even number is almost 20,000 per year.

WA4KCN: "Any marketing or advertising campaign produces its greatest yields at the outset. It is rather easy to predict therefore the marginal increase in licensees will soon reverse itself."

Maybe. It depends on whether the word has actually gotten out, for one thing.

After the 2000 rules changes, I was surprised to find that many hams I knew had no idea that the changes had happened, even a few years after they'd taken effect! If licensed amateurs didn't know, the general public was even more in the dark.

WA4KCN: "Despite the Fcc's public position on the matter, those in favor of maintance will be vindicated as the service will be left with no greater influence from increased numbers."

Have you *ever* seen a government agency or official admit to being wrong about *anything* without being forced to do so?

Also remember that we've had periods of slow and no growth before. People talk about the good ol' days, but in the 1960s there was almost no growth in US amateur radio at all! This was despite the fact that for most of the decade a General got you all privileges, there was no internet, no PCs, no video games, no cell phones, no VCRs, DVDs nor iPods, most people had black-and-white TVs with only a couple of channels, etc. The 1960s economy was good and everyone was interested in the 'space race', with science and engineering front-and-center, yet US ham radio was almost the same size in 1970 as in 1960.

WA4KCN: "What will remain is a pool of less qualified operators most being effectively deprived and never experiencing all that amateur radio has to offer."

Only if we don't show them.

I posted some ways we can help keep CW alive in ham radio on another eham.net thread. It's the one about CW and the new crop of operators.

WA4KCN: "The abolishment decision will be shown to have been foolish considering the gain to the service along with the opportunity cost for our new licensees."

See above about govt. admitting they were wrong.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
As for proof of silent keys my thoughs is does there spouse know who to mention to if any there Ham Family member has passed on. Mine doesnt except throuhg maybe the local Philippine radio groups. There for the numbers might be higher than is posted..my wife again has no clues to post such items..

As for Principles some might just figure its a matter of doing what you feel is the right thing to do..as one person here already stated he wanted to pass that portion opf the exam and it was gone before he do so.

As I stated in my own behalf I felt it was important and did so so I could get on the airwaves..and have for over 28 yrs...or do some wish to just wait forever and not operate..thats a waste of air time in my mind...
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
As for proof of silent keys my thoughts is does there spouse know who to mention to if any there Ham Family member has passed on. Mine doesn't except throuhg maybe the local Philippine radio groups. There for the numbers might be higher than is posted..my wife again has no clues to post such items..I live overseas.

As for Principles some might just figure its a matter of doing what you feel is the right, as part of the things to do to aquire the license..as one person here already stated he wanted to pass that portion opf the exam and it was gone before he do so.

As I stated in my own behalf I felt it was important and did so so I could get on the airwaves..and have for over 28 yrs...or do some wish to just wait forever and not operate..thats a waste of air time in my mind...
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N6HPX on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Well the party who said we had no VE's in someways your right but in other ways your wrong..we had Hams who would give the exams like the Morse and Written they were volunteers like mine at a testing session in Richmond California, he would give the information say for example Novice then General and all the others then would also do the morse program. At the end he and a few other members would give the test for those licenses. So we did have a sort of VE.
When I took my Tech license in Hawaii I was given a 79 question exam, for both the Tech,and General class I believe and then the 5 wpm for the Technician class license, later I took the 13 in San Francisco and passed it. I passed both those tests and only 5 questions on the written.
For me it was a matter of principle so I could use some of my $5000 radios and antennas.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
WA2JJH posted with no flair but great illiteracy:

" EHAM IS FAR BETTER THAN MOST INTERNET SLEASE.
Except for a few hams, none of us hams have criminal
records. Some of the insults are funny.(then again I like mold)"

"LOOK AT SOME EHAM POST'S AS A TECHNICAL ''NATIONAL LAMPOON""

Very well, we will all take your postings as part of that 'National Lampoon.' The word is 'sleaze.' It rhymes with 'ease.' It is easier to call others bad names when you can't discuss anything.
...................
WA2JJH: "BtW...for the record, I have far more respect for URBANE GORILLA AND RADIO123US THAN that 6 land J.I.Joe wanna-be shmoe that heckles N2EH. N2EH is a GREAT HAM. He is an excellant ham and a decent man. He outwits MR. 6 land comic book worrier.."

I'm not sure exactly who you mean. I received my Honorable Discharge from Army service in April, 1960. That is 47 years ago. I am proud of what I did and the branch of service I was in. Can you say the same? Or even close to that? Right now my grand-nephew is serving in Iraq as a PFC in a heavy equipment transport Army company. Perhaps you want to make fun of him? You have some perverse right to do so and I will have the moral and ethical RIGHT to take you apart anytime I want.

I am not "G. I. Joe" or even 'Hamas.' A more analagous label is pre-1948 Irgun. That doesn't fit me, either, since I am an American. Think about it, if that is possible.

I live in 'Six Land' by choice since 1956. It has the greatest number of amateur licensees as well as population of any state in the USA. If you meant me, than my amateur callsign is AF6AY. It's the only one I've ever had so it should be relatively easy to remember. ALPHA-FOXTROT-SIX-ALPHA-YANKEE. On the other hand...

N2EH is Edwin J. Holdsworth who lives in Honeoye Falls, NY. I've never corresponded with or talked to N2EH at any time.

But, apparently you don't care to correctly identify anyone. That is contrary to FCC regulations. It is more like CB practice where everyone has a handle instead of a callsign. Are you basically CB?

In fact, you don't even want your mailing address on www.qrz.com. But, your FCC license information puts you as Michael E. Posner, 43 Greenwich Ave., New York, NY, 10014. Or is that false also?

There is NO ONE listed in the FCC amateur database as 'URBANE GORILLA' or 'RADIO123US' or even 'DUALGATEMOSFET.' Perhaps you meant to write 'URBANGORILLA' instead of 'URBANE GORILLA.' All are FAKE names, the kind used by gutless LITTLE men HIDING behind fake identities so that they can vent all the filth that bubbles up to the top of their dirty little minds.
....................
WA2JJH: "It is best not to comment. This EHAM PSYCOPATHOLIC stuff are things we cannot say on air!"

There is no such word as 'psycopatholic.' You must mean "psycopathic." For the latter you fulfill the requirements very well. You say 'it is best not to comment' then you go ahead and comment anyway.
...................
WA2JJH: "I HAVE NOT BEEN THE SAME SINCE 9/11. So I vent with jokes here too."

We aren't interested in your psychiatric evaluation prior to 6 years ago. Try not to enthuse any newcomers in with YOUR style of getting them into U.S. amateur radio. It only dumbs down that service.

Shalom,
AF6AY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 13, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY posted:

N6HPX: "but from what I heard on the last arnewsline there isnt many coming in the only increase is amongst ourselves and we also lost alot..some either from anger or just retireing from it all..."

N2EY: "Let's look at some numbers:

The following are the total number of current unexpired FCC-issued amateur licenses held by individuals on the dates named."

On www.hamdata.com there is a nice little block of numbers that the ARRL does NOT include. For the last 12 months 26,789 NEW licensees and 25,854 expirations. The delta is only +935.

That's a period from BEFORE the elimination of the code test.
........................
N2EY: "... Also does not include licenses that are expired but in the 2 year grace period. (www.hamdata.com included licenses in the grace period)."

Oh, my, still fretting over using another license totals site than the 'official' ARRL website? :-)

ARRL statistics do NOT include the expirations nor do they directly indicate NEW licensees. That's part of the trend in totals. It's rather obvious that neither you nor the League want to show expirations (it is psychologically negative, yet those expirations are definitely NOT 'active' now).

In years previous to this you have claimed that the expirations are 'caused' by the 'failure of Technician class to renew' after the 12-year total time after 1991 and creation of that license. Sorry, that isn't the case, just your own suppostition. Technician class licensees totalled 309,027 (All), 292,062 ('active') with a delta of 16,965 or 5.49% of all licensees in that class for FCC database numbers of 12 Nov 07.

On the same database numbers, General class had 155,020 (All), 142,560 ('active') with a delta of 12,460 or 8.04% of all licensees in that class. Extra had 115,142 (All), 111,747 ('active') with a delta of 3,395 or 2.95% of all licensees in that class. General class has the HIGHEST percentage in the 2-year grace period.

If any class had a maximum lapse into the 2-year grace period, the percentage would be 16.67%.

17 years ago the number of no-code-test Technicians was ZERO. Now that class is, by far, the largest and over twice as many as General class. "Active" no-code-test Technicians make up 44.56% of ALL 'active' licensees. Now, I KNOW you are going to ruler-spank on that last percentage and quote the over-7-year-old statement about Tech Plusses not reneweing via written testing being reclassed as 'just Technician.' Problem is, you do NOT have a firm figure on those Tech Plusses renewing as 'just Tech.'
NO-CODE-TEST 'active' Technician class PROBABLY makes up at least 40% of ALL 'active' licenses even though you and other morsemen think they are just ham-trash. :-(.
........................
N2EY: "You can get up-to-date license numbers by
going to the ARRL website and searching on "license counts". Licenses are broken down by class and state/territory. Updated daily."

Anyone can get 'up-to-date' license numbers at www.hamdata.com and www.qrz.com, also updated daily. EVERYONE gets their information from the FCC database, even the ARRL. ARRL just massages the database information a bit differently than other websites. Of course, if one is a Believer in the sanctity of the League, that is the 'only' place to get 'correct information.' As one trying to get an objective appraisal, I'd rather look at two or more sources of database massaging. Your mileage has always varied. <shrug>

AF6AY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by URBANGORILLA on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
First he rips WA2JJH to shreds with insult after insult. Knowing Mike is Jewish after looking him up in the FCC database, he then he signs his post with a snide "Shalom". Anderson, you are an Anti-Semitic piece of filth. Thank you for revealing your true colors. Now we all know who and what you really are, a bigoted piece of scum.

UG
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KILO4UUG on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Repealing the CW requirement"
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN !
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KILO4UUG on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
URBANGORILLA MAKING FRIENDS AGAIN !
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KILO4UUG on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
URBANGORILLA MAKING FRIENDS AGAIN !
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6-POOR EXCUSS FOR ANY TYPE OF M.O.S.
I Have many friends that died in IRAQ. To bad you did not get 'fragged', if you really did serve in active combat. You were probably a staff (infection) SGT typist.
I will not confirm or deny, that I get paid checks for mil. defense contract engineering work. Or that I was ANY TYPE OF M.O.S.---BI-OTCH!!
THE FCC now allows mailing address's and P.O.'s Not that I am scared by your veiled threats. I can send you some Jane's monthly pubs. However you do have some type of pathology found in the DSM-IV.

Many retired M.O.S. hams do not brag about their sacrifice for out great Nation.

Your anti-Semitism was half right. I am half Italian too! I never ID ed you as a psychopath either. Rage dis-order,bi-polar type 2, borderline personality, or profoundly depressed. YOU NEED HELP!
I feel sorry for your son having you as a father. I am sure he is an A-OK soldier, no thanks to you.
I wish AND respect all veterans well, except for posers,like YOU!!

YOU CAN RANT ON OUT OF CONTEXT ALL YOU WANT. EVENTUALLY YOU WILL BE IGNORED AS A CRANK IN A DIAPER!
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KW4JX on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
>N4VHR you said -on November 13, 2007 -

>'You will see the same arguments in most any sport/hobby/service as it evolves. Hunters constantly argue over the fact that someone would rather continue to hunt with a traditional longbow or recurve rather than a modern compound bow.'
>
Do you view Hunting as a sport or hobby or service please?
I can't see it as a Sport because your opponent doesn't know it it taking part until it feels intense pain or death?
Buffalo Gil W2/G3LBS
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
A6---Before you respond. Think. Why bother to answer me. Remember what your D.I. drilled in to you about consideration for others?

I wrote that I thought UG,RADIO123, and Dualgate were better than you. wHY YOU ASK. I have seen them here for years. They have great knowledge of Radio's and RF.

I know they are real hams. They have great knowledge of radio's and they keep thier insults short and funny.

Your the NEW eham NATZI here!!!

You rant on and on and a huge bandwidth of ANYONE that did not agree with you is wasted. WHERE IS YOUR MILITARY tactical SENSE. You diseminate too much bull and bandwidth.

Lets call this one a draw. Consider others that want to talk about the topic or have intelligent topics not in the scope of focus.
WHY DO YOU AUTOSOPY, THEN DEBATE FOR PAGES.
LET US SEE WHAT YOU KNOW, WRITE AN ARTICAL???
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY wrote:

"On www.hamdata.com there is a nice little block of numbers that the ARRL does NOT include. For the last 12 months 26,789 NEW licensees and 25,854 expirations. The delta is only +935."

So it turns out that removing the Morse Code test did not result in many more new hams. Interesting.

AF6AY: "That's a period from BEFORE the elimination of the code test."

A bit more than three months before the change, and a bit less than nine months after.

What's your point, Len? That there are more hams now than a year ago? That's pretty obvious.

........................
N2EY: "... Also does not include licenses that are expired but in the 2 year grace period. (www.hamdata.com included licenses in the grace period)."

AF6AY: "Oh, my, still fretting over using another license totals site than the 'official' ARRL website? :-)"

Not fretting at all, Len. Just being clear about what the numbers include and do not include. IOW, being specific and accurate.

AF6AY: "ARRL statistics do NOT include the expirations nor do they directly indicate NEW licensees."

They don't include licenses that are expired but in the grace period. They do include all current licenses held by individuals.

What's wrong with using those numbers, Len?

AF6AY: "That's part of the trend in totals. It's rather obvious that neither you nor the League want to show expirations (it is psychologically negative, yet those expirations are definitely NOT 'active' now)."

What's your point, Len? Is there something wrong with showing the total number of unexpired, current licenses?

Why should grace-period and club licenses be included?

AF6AY: "In years previous to this you have claimed that the expirations are 'caused' by the 'failure of Technician class to renew' after the 12-year total time after 1991 and creation of that license."

Where did I ever claim that, Len? Show us. I don't think you can, because you are completely mistaken.

AF6AY: "Sorry, that isn't the case, just your own suppostition."

I can't suppose something I didn't write, Len.

Prove your claim. Show us a link to where I wrote what you say I did. It's clear you can't.

AF6AY: "Technician class licensees totalled 309,027 (All), 292,062 ('active') with a delta of 16,965 or 5.49% of all licensees in that class for FCC database numbers of 12 Nov 07."

And your point is?

AF6AY: "On the same database numbers, General class had 155,020 (All), 142,560 ('active') with a delta of 12,460 or 8.04% of all licensees in that class. Extra had 115,142 (All), 111,747 ('active') with a delta of 3,395 or 2.95% of all licensees in that class. General class has the HIGHEST percentage in the 2-year grace period."

So some classes have more licensees in the grace period than others.

Why don't you mention the Novices, Tech Pluses or Advanceds, Len? Together they total well over 100,000 amateurs.

AF6AY: "If any class had a maximum lapse into the 2-year grace period, the percentage would be 16.67%."

How do you know for sure?

AF6AY: "17 years ago the number of no-code-test Technicians was ZERO. Now that class is, by far, the largest and over twice as many as General class."

The Technician totals include some who are Morse Code tested and some who are not. Been that way since 1991.

AF6AY: ""Active" no-code-test Technicians make up 44.56% of ALL 'active' licensees."

No, they don't. Some Technicians are Morse Code tested and some are not.

AF6AY: "Now, I KNOW you are going to ruler-spank on that last percentage and quote the over-7-year-old statement about Tech Plusses not reneweing via written testing being reclassed as 'just Technician.'"

What the heck does that last sentence mean, Len?

"Tech Plusses not reneweing via written testing being reclassed as 'just Technician.'"? Doesn't make any sense at all.

And what is "ruler-spank" supposed to mean?

I suggest you proofread and spellcheck a little better before you call others illiterate, Len. I mean..."reneweing"? "Plusses"?

The plain and simple fact is that since April 15 of 2000, FCC has renewed all Technician Plus licenses as Technician. Which means the Tech Plus totals will reach zero in less than 3 years, and that the Tech totals are a mixed bag of code-tested and non-code-tested amateurs.

On top of that, Technicians who passed the old Element 1 before February of this year got Tech Plus privileges even though their licenses say Technician.

And on top of *that*, the FCC did not create the Tech Plus license class in 1991. They simply lumped all Technicians, code tested and not, into one pile. Only when some hams complained did they create Tech Plus.

So the claim that Technicians are all non-code-tested is simply not true, Len. Just another of your mistakes.

AF6AY: "Problem is, you do NOT have a firm figure on those Tech Plusses renewing as 'just Tech.'"

Why is that a problem? You don't have one either. And it's totally irrelevant now that there is no more Morse Code test for any class of license, and all Technicians have the same operating privileges.

AF6AY: "NO-CODE-TEST 'active' Technician class PROBABLY makes up at least 40% of ALL 'active' licenses"

That's just speculation on your part, Len. You have no evidence to back it up at all. Like the things you claim I wrote, with nothing to back them up.

Why not stick to facts?

AF6AY: "even though you and other morsemen think they are just ham-trash. :-(."

Len, I don't think any class of amateur license is "just ham-trash". Nor have I ever said anything like that.

It seems you're either mistaken or just making stuff up. Pitiful, really.

AF6AY: "Anyone can get 'up-to-date' license numbers at www.hamdata.com and www.qrz.com, also updated daily. EVERYONE gets their information from the FCC database, even the ARRL. ARRL just massages the database information a bit differently than other websites."

Is there a problem with the ARRL numbers, Len? Something wrong with not counting clubs and expired-but-in-the-grace-period licenses?

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
WA2JJH ranted:

"A6---Before you respond. Think. Why bother to answer me. Remember what your D.I. drilled in to you about consideration for others?"

What 'D.I." did I have in 1952? Tsk. The U.S. Army has Basic Training, not 'boot camp,' and the Basic Training instructors are Cadre, not 'D.I.s' :-) Those instructors do far more than teach close-order drill.

'Consideration for others?' Outside of Unit Integrity and First Aid the closest we came to that was Military Courtesy. :-) Most of the 'consideration' time other than those was learning to 'close with, and destroy the enemy.' :-)
...................
WA2JJH: "I wrote that I thought UG,RADIO123, and Dualgate were better than you. wHY YOU ASK. I have seen them here for years. They have great knowledge of Radio's and RF."

"I know they are real hams. They have great knowledge of radio's and they keep thier insults short and funny."

So, modern U.S. amateur radio is all about insulting others? Sitting around and trying to put down others, especially newcomers? Is that at the heart of amateur radio of now? Must be, since you are so passionate in desiring all that. Have you made your desires known to the ARRL?
..................
WA2JJH: "You rant on and on and a huge bandwidth of ANYONE that did not agree with you is wasted.

Tsk. I already know that trying to tell you anything you don't want to hear is useless. :-) This is a relatively open venue for opinions and everything is open for public comment by anyone else. It is 'wasted' only in your peculiar definition that applies solely to yourself.
...................
WA2JJH: "WHERE IS YOUR MILITARY tactical SENSE."

'Military tactical sense?' You are an 'expert' on that? :-) How does that apply to U.S. amateur radio?
..................
WA2JJH: "Lets call this one a draw. Consider others that want to talk about the topic or have intelligent topics not in the scope of focus."

Tsk. You sound all 'focussed up.' :-) Sorry, mighty warlord-wannabe, YOU don't have any say in the matter. Feel free to complain to the proprietors of e-ham.net anytime you want. Only they can ban me from access here.
..................
WA2JJH: "WHY DO YOU AUTOSOPY, THEN DEBATE FOR PAGES. LET US SEE WHAT YOU KNOW, WRITE AN ARTICAL???"

What is an 'autosopy?' What is an 'artical?' :-)

I know what the original ARTICLE said and what the subject started out to be. You on the other hand want to kill anyone so that you can do some sort of AUTOPSY. Do you know how to do a 'Y-cut?' :-)
Can you analyze the results of your 'autopsy?' Or do you sit around and insult others, try to put them down in the name of Ham Radio? Not a good atmosphere for a hobby activity. More like some perverted sado-masochism exercise. But, you seem to enjoy such masochism...and don't realize how it looks to others.

Enjoy
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
WA2JJH: "AF6-POOR EXCUSS FOR ANY TYPE OF M.O.S."

? I received my Honorable Discharge from the United States ARMY in 1960. Nothing I did in civilian life applied to any military occupation specialty I had while in the military service.
.............
WA2JJH: "I Have many friends that died in IRAQ. To bad you did not get 'fragged', if you really did serve in active combat."

Tsk. I've never claimed any 'active combat' experience. It's not on my records back at NARA in St. Louis. I don't even go to any VFW beer hall and tell tall stories. Never been to the Middle East, nor southeast Asia. Only northeast Asia. :-)
.............
WA2JJH: "You were probably a staff (infection) SGT typist."

No. My formal MOS title was 'Microwave Radio Relay Operations and Maintenance Supervisor,' then under the numeric designation of '281.6' as an E-5 ('three up and one down') (those numbers have long been changed to keep up with the changing state of the communications arts). While waiting for that microwave equipment to arrive I had a temporary MOS of Fixed Station Radio Operations and Mainentance which included VHF and UHF radio relay equipment. You can see more details at:

http://sujan.hallikainen.org/BroadcastHistory/uploads/My3Years.pdf [6 MB file]

That was long ago and far away and that file is only for a nostalgic look at what some of the big guns in HF radio were doing a half century ago. You can see a much larger collection of communications at Elkins' HUGE history site of USAEUR (U.S. Army, EURope) communications there from the end of WWII to the present. Very well done and researched work that is for military communications.
...............
WA2JJH: "I will not confirm or deny, that I get paid checks for mil. defense contract engineering work. Or that I was ANY TYPE OF M.O.S.---BI-OTCH!!"

Irrelevant to the subject at hand. U.S. amateur radio is a NOT-for-profit radio activity for personal enjoyment. The Department of Defense directs MARS, the closest the DoD gets to amateur radio. I'm not going to check the GAO records for 'your' DoD work. It would be a waste of my time. :-)
................
WA2JJH: "THE FCC now allows mailing address's and P.O.'s Not that I am scared by your veiled threats. "
? 'Now?" The FCC never 'hid' any U.S. amateur radio database information except in a VERY FEW instances such as for 'Martin Brandeaux' marked only as 'famous actor,' supposedly that of the late actor Marlon Brando. Anyone can download the FCC database for radio amateurs. It is open to anyone with Internet access. It helps to have high-speed access since the database is a HUGE file.
................
WA2JJH: "I can send you some Jane's monthly pubs. However you do have some type of pathology found in the DSM-IV."

You are talking gibberish again, Steve, er, Michael. :-) 'Jane' is an uncommon surname in the UK and was the founder of a series of informational books about the world's militaries as well as merchant shipping. That does not apply here. If you were up on U.S. military electronics you could access a LARGE number of sources of information from the U.S. military websites themselves, associations such as AFCEA and Association of Old Crows (Electronic Warfare), and military specialty sites such as the USN's Naval Warfare Center at China Lake, CA, and even obtain condensed handbooks on modern radar technology, archived editions of 'Signal' a quarterly edition for Army Signal Corps out of Fort Gordon, GA, the Military Intelligence School at Fort Huachuca, AZ (webiste has a most interesting sub-page on the history of M.I. with separate sub-page covering cryptology history), government contract awards with details of who and what was awarded, all for PUBLIC dissemination. There's Defense Electronics in electronic edition (Penton?) and e-versions of free (paper) trade publications of EDN, Electronic Design, Microwave Journal, Microwaves and RF, RF Design and others. That's just a sampling of the huge amount of PUBLIC documentation available.

Is it 'pathological' to KNOW and EXPLAIN what goes on in the much-larger world of 'radio' other than amateurism? To those whose insular behavior excludes everything NOT about amateur radio, I'm sure it would seem so to them. But...just who is 'pathological' then? :-)
..................
WA2JJH: "Many retired M.O.S. hams do not brag about their sacrifice for out great Nation."

It is very difficult to brag if one has been killed (the ultimate sacrifice). It isn't necessary to die first. Neither is it a necessity to 'die for your country.' Military training stresses survival, to do what the late General George Patton said: "make some poor SOB die for HIS country."

N2EY used to misquote an old baseball pitcher's phrase "It ain't braggin' if ya done it!" So, I've stated that I DID things involving radio and communications over the past six decades. I've not claimed to be a champion at any of those things. Neither am I some sort of 'loser.' :-) You express rage-filled indignation at anyone who can take on any task and succeed, even in the slightest. Is that 'patholical?' Since you claim some sort of psychological expertise on that, try jugdging yourself, not others.
..................
WA2JJH: "Your anti-Semitism was half right."

Should I bring that up in Temple sometime? :-) How about in church...like with Pastor Ralph Midtlyng at All-Saints Church (Lutheran and Episcopalian) at the bottom of my street? :-)

I can key your responses by merely mentioning a name such as 'Irgun.' Not a bunch of nice guys in the British Protectorate of Palestine prior to 1948, but they DID help to secure Israel's independence in that year. 'Hamas' is a more modern term. All I need do is to mention them and you and others come unglued. :-) Interesting reaction.
....................
WA2JJH: "Rage dis-order,bi-polar type 2, borderline personality, or profoundly depressed. YOU NEED HELP!"

Are you looking in a mirror when writing this? :-)
..................
WA2JJH: "I feel sorry for your son having you as a father."

You must be suffering attention deficit disorder. I have a GRAND-NEPHEW serving in Iraq. My late first wife didn't have enough time on this earth to produce a son.
.................
WA2JJH: "I am sure he is an A-OK soldier, no thanks to you. I wish AND respect all veterans well, except for posers,like YOU!!"

Tsk. I can supply all the official documentation about my service, even mention a still-living, long-time amateur radio licensee who served with me long ago at the same station, doing the same operations and maintenance (but on a different shift...we had four teams to operate 24/7). The FBI, DCAS, even the CIA among many alphabet-soup agencies don't believe I was a 'poser.' :-)

The United States Army did well on training my grand-nephew. The U.S. military does what it is told in the world, not just in the Middle East. But you insist on confusing service, patriotism, and just about everything else with your own pet little hatreds of those that stand up to you and disagree with your opinions. I'm not sorry for you, just trying to point out what and who you are to others.
....................
WA2JJH: "YOU CAN RANT ON OUT OF CONTEXT ALL YOU WANT. EVENTUALLY YOU WILL BE IGNORED AS A CRANK IN A DIAPER!"

Actually, this isn't that far out of context. If you express yourself as you've just done to me, you can't be expected to be a good salesman for amateur radio. That's a fault of so many old-timers, trying to assert themselves about only Their Ways are The Best. That's NOT the way to interest strangers to any technologically-oriented avocaation. When YOU lapse into that sort of gibberish you've lost any possible positive attitudes and will turn others off.

Newer generations seldom revere, much less emulate what was done in long-past decades by amateurs 'pioneering' the airwaves while the professionals did the same (and did it in a more scientific, quantifiable way). [there are exceptions whose emotional make-up have them living in the past, but they are in the minority] In order to 'sell' amateur radio to newer generations who are strangers to amateur radio, you've got to be flexible, to think (at least partly) as They do, and meet them on Their terms, not yours. Never ever treat them as if YOU were some kind of drill instructor and ham radio was some kind of military service. Insult them and you will receive your own 'courts martial.' Remember that there are far MORE of them than you. :-)

73, Len AF6AY [that's Alpha-Foxtrot-Six-Alpha-Yankee, got that?]
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N4VHR posted:

"I got my Extra ticket the "hard way" with 20 WPM code. I still use CW 90% of the time. I just enjoy it. If you got a no-code ticket and don't use code, I don't care ... welcome to Ham Radio! Have fun! Use whatever legal mode you like and are licensed for."

Thank you for that. One of the rare things seen in here...actual expression of comradeship.

That was very refreshing, much appreciated.

73, Len AF6AY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
URBANGORILLA beats his tiny hairless chest and squeaks:

"First he rips WA2JJH to shreds with insult after insult. Knowing Mike is Jewish after looking him up in the FCC database, he then he signs his post with a snide "Shalom"."

The FCC database does NOT list any religious preferences. :-)

'Shalom' is an insult? It is an honorific salutation at the end of a meeting, one of faith.

You seem to have no knowledge of history of Israel-Palestine area just after WWII. You aren't familiar with the Irgun. Too bad. You DO act like Hamas, though.
.............
UG the pretend toughie: "Anderson, you are an Anti-Semitic piece of filth."

Oh, my! My late first wife was Jewish (Reform). Have you worn out your yarmulke butting heads with ordinary people? [do you even know what a yarmulke IS?] :-)
..............
UG the ignorant: "Thank you for revealing your true colors."

Hmmm? I am, if any color, pinkish-white. But, my high school had the team colors of red and black. Since it was the one on the east side of the city (East Rockford, IL) the familiar name of 'E-RAB' was coined before WWII. [for "East Red And Black' if you can't understand the connection]. For years and years the students at 'East' thought nothing of calling themselves 'E-RABs.' Dr. Tim Johnson, a contributor to ABC-TV national news broadcasts on medical subjects, was an E-RAB (class of '55? '56?). [I was in the class of '51]

My 'colors' are red, white, and blue for my allegiance to my country, the United States of America. Which country gets your allegiance? The Twilight Zone? Fantasy Island? Batman comics?
...............
UG the brainless: "Now we all know who and what you really are, a bigoted piece of scum."

Oh, wow, what a nice expression of comradeship in a HOBBY activity! :-)

Thank you ever so much. I will go to Temple and sing Kaddish for your long-dead ability to get along with people.

By the way, you should check out your KKK uniform. It appears to be rather soiled and worn. That won't look good when you parade around in Newington stridently supporting U.S. amateur radio as a noble, righteous religion... <shrug>

Beep, beep
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY posted:

"AF6AY wrote: "Having taken all the required tests for an amateur radio license on 25 February 2007, I found it neither the 'Simple Simon' kind of thing nor anything close to formal-class Finals or even Mid-Term tests.""

N2EY: "But you have no experience with the amateur radio exams of the past, Len. Only the tests of 2007, whose question-and-answer pools have been publicly available for years."

By law only the current amateur radio license exams are used for examinations. The FCC doesn't require anyone to be familiar with 'old exams.' Why are you so confused?
....................
AF6AY: "Answering questions in the isolated, formal setting usually found requires an ability to focus on each question and search memory for the correct answer. Some can cross-connect their memories easily but most ordinary humans have to work at it (as I do). A good example of the former is the contestants on the ABC-TV show "Jeopardy" featuring a bewildering array of subjects; those that make it to air have extraordinary capability for association on most subjects. My wife and I are fans of that show, regularly watching after supper, and also engaging in a friendly rivalry on answers. :-) Mostly we learn new, interesting things on a variety of subjects. It is fun to watch and - very indirectly - to participate."

N2EY: "The game would be somewhat different if all possible questions and the correct answers were available beforehand, though."

On the TV show 'Jeopardy' the ANSWERS ARE GIVEN, first. Contestants must supply the questions. :-)
It is obvious you aren't familiar with the show. Feel free to contact the originator of that show, preferrably in person. :-)
...................
N2EY: "However, earning an amateur radio license was/is considered to be a significant accomplishment when applying to colleges."

By WHICH college or university? Show the proof by statement from those academic institutions.
.........................
N2EY: "You seem to want to downgrade the accomplishments of others, Len."

No, just the opposite. I just don't accept HOBBY activities or tests or 'radiosport' contests to be any high value in LIFE to all. Ability to pass an Amateur Extra test, even with a morse code test, cannot intelligently be classifed as being up with 'greatness' such as earning a Nobel Prize or finding a cure for cancer. Those accomplishments are personal ones, of interest only to those engaged in the same personal activity, or those engaged in a niche subject of that personal activity.
........................
N2EY: "The Extra class license includes all the elements of all the other FCC-issued amateur licenses. Therefore, it is the top class."

It yields only the most personal options. It is "top" only in the bragging-rights sense.

Since I was granted an Amateur Extra license, mine also falls into that 'top' category. Except those who got theirs earlier when there was a code test considered it nothing at all. By LAW I have all the rights and privileges as any Extra. In some people's minds I am not worth it. They are NOT the LAW. <shrug>
........................
N2EY: "By whom, Len? Who "lobbied" for the Extra? It wasn't ARRL."

Prove it wasn't the ARRL. Explain why the ARRL maintains a professional lobbying organization in Washington, DC...in addition to a law firm on retainer.
........................
N2EY: "The modern version of the Amateur Extra license was created by FCC in 1951, to *replace* the old Class A/Advanced license. The Amateur Extra license has been available ever since then = it has never been closed to new issues. In the first couple of decades of its existence, there was an experience requirement, but that was eliminated more than 30 years ago."

None of those things are applicable in 2007. Why do you write so many words about what WAS?
.......................
N2EY: "Nowhere in Part 97 is the word "hobby" used."

Don't quibble about words unless you are a certified etymologist. AMATEUR radio is NOT Professional radio. Amateur radio licensees may not accept monetary compensation for radio services rendered as an amateur except in very specified instances noted in Part 97, title 47 C.F.R. It is NOT professional. So, if it isn't the same as a HOBBY, what is it, some kind of 'service to humanity?' Are you working for some kind of sainthood working 40m CW? Does that elevate you to some transcendental plane? Ommmm....?
.....................
N2EY: "There's also the fact that the Morse Code requirement had been removed two days before you took the tests."

Duhhhh. You overstate the obvious. :-)

I simply followed the LAW. There was NO LAW saying that amateur radio tests required any morse code cognition tests on 25 February 2007. Even if a morse code test was available that day, it had NO BEARING on any amateur radio testing. Do you understand what has been explained to you by Miranda? Or do you need legal counsel? If so, the court will appoint such counsel to assist you. [thank you, Miranda, for stepping in and helping...:-) ]
.....................
N2EY: "And there's the fact that back in January of 2000 you publicly announced that you were "going for Extra out of the box":"

Did I send out engraved notices to that effect? Take out ads in newspapers or QST? Buy air time on radio or TV broadcasting? :-)

Jimmy, you've milked that subject dry. Try some other subject of your unique 'civil insult.' :-)
...............
N2EY: "After all, you could have gotten a Technician license with no code test any time after Feb 1991. Or any other amateur license issued by FCC with 5 wpm code since 2000. Medical waivers for 13 and 20 wpm code since 1990."

Oh, dear, milking another dry cow! Sweetums, I could have gotten an amateur radio license in 1956 or even earlier! All I would have to do was learn morse code, something NOT required in my Army experience nor ever required in any paid-for, non-amateur occupation after 1956.

Work a little harder on your alleged 'challenges.' You are losing your touch on those.
.................
N2EY: "But your first experience with *amateur radio* exams was in February of this year, Len."

So, if you so strongly object to that, WRITE THE FCC AND DEMAND THEY TAKE BACK MY LICENSE!
:-)
................
N2EY: "Many of those who passed both the First 'Phone and the Amateur Extra, back when both were given by FCC, considered the Amateur Extra to require more knowledge."

WHO were those? Give names of those who said the HAM license was harder, then give the names of those who said the opposite. List ALL of them. Or admit what you wrote was just your personal opinion.
.................
N2EY: "But the Army did send you to school for electronics, Len. And you got on-the-job training. It's not like you taught yourself radio in order to pass the tests at a young age, or had to pay your own way through colleger or technical school to learn enough to pass the exams."

What schooling did I get, Jimmy? Do you KNOW what it was? Do you KNOW what the 'on-the-job' training was? What TESTS did I have in the military? We had to be 18 or older to serve. Do you find that offensive? Back then one had to be 18 in order to get a drivers license. Do you object to that? Why? Can you explain what we in the military ALSO had to learn, practice, and be reasonably proficient at?

What 'colleger' education did I need in the military, Jimmy? For what exams. Explain that.

You can't, but that's understandable. You were never IN the military, therefore you don't know. <shrug>
......................
N2EY: "Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it's a different thing from, say, the eight-year-old who passed the Amateur Extra back in the 1990s, when it required 20 wpm code and five written exams."

This is the year 2007. What was required in the 1990s is NOT applicable. Feel free to review the CURRENT Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. Also the dates of issue of all the test elements given on www.ncvec.org. Times change, Jimmy. At least TRY to keep up with it.
...................
N2EY: "But you didn't even try to get an amateur license until this year."

Oh, dear! What a TERRIBLE moral flaw, ey? :-) Not.
................
N2EY: "Well, considering how many times you've told us how you got Extra all in one sitting...."

Not as many times as I've told about getting my First Class Radiotelephone (Commercial) Radio Operator License in one sitting. In Chicago, 90 miles away. All by myself. At age 23 in 1956 :-)

I planned for both exams, prepared myself, had the confidence that I could do it. I did it. Fifty-one years apart. Both were successful. "It ain't braggin' if ya done it," Jimmy, just like you used to say. :-)
................
N2EY: "The reason for multiple amateur radio license classes is so that people don't have to learn everything required for full privileges all at once just to get started. It's so people can learn at their own pace."

Nice boilerplate remark. :-) You just 'forgot' to add that some applicants might just ALREADY know enough required for full privileges. Such is legally possible. The FCC thinks so and they are the ones granting all civil radio licenses in the USA. Tsk, even the ARRL recognizes that. :-)
..............
N2EY: "It's not like everyone who becomes a ham has a background in electronics. For some of us, ham radio was the beginning."

Oh, my, here comes that old story of the 'kid in the 7th grade' making his way solo to the center of Philadelphia for his first license at age 13 1/2. :-) OK, Jimmy, you get a nice pat on the head and a gold star to paste somewhere. Happy? :-)

Hmmm...maybe Sly Stallone would be interested in making a movie of that glorious, heroic deed? I can just see it now, the 'kid in the 7th grade' in sweats running up that long, long flight of steps of the museum in Philly and cheering himself at the top! Or maybe you want to go to a slaughterhouse and punch sides of beef in CW? :-)

Are ALL of us required to emulate your experience in order to be though 'worthy'? I don't think so. Can't find it in any Part of Title 47 C.F.R., not even in the Communications Act of 1934 or the Tele-communications Act of 1996. Are you writing your senator or congressperson to put that into law? Have you expressed yourself to the ARRL on that?

AF6AY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY: "Who are you to say what I should write, Len? Don't you believe in free speech?"

AF6AY: "A long time ago..."

N2EY: "It's a simple yes-or-no question, Len. You wrote a big pile of words to avoid answering it."

I answered it. You can't understand it. You've never served your country in a military. It's as simple as that. Had you served you would have understood. I can't help you with your lack of understanding.

Here's a simple question for YOU: Do you still beat your wife?

Does it have a 'simple yes-or-no answer?'
...................
AF6AY: "You never served in the military of the United States."

N2EY: "How do you know for sure?"

You once (grudgingly) said you were NOT in any military. Your comments to other veterans who happened to be against the code test shows it rather blatantly. But, knowing that most in here were NOT on Usenet newsgroup rec.radio.amateur.policy, you will ask for 'examples.' That lends a facade of righteousness to your 'challenge.' You are hoping all will not see through the facade and notice it is a false front. It's a good tactic, I'll admit, and others have used it before you on other subjects. You may have convinced some, just not all.

What's interesting (from a pathological-academic standpoint) is your confusion of morse code with military service. Anyone who likes morse code and is a veteran is "doing a great service to his country" while those who were against the code test and also veterans were 'insulting' and other unkind words.

Would you swear to give your LIFE to preserve morse code? To preserve amateur radio (as you know it)?
You tend to get mixed up on what is more meaningful in good citizenship.

It's a pity that you have so little regard for all those who volunteered for military service and still profess to be a citizen of the United States of America. The USA has had an all-volunteer military for 34 years. It began being all-volunteer around the time you were 20. <shrug>
.......................
N2EY: "You insult just about everyone who disagrees with you on-line, Len."

Tsk. After a dozen years of your typical comment, dodging the subject and redirecting, I can say this for sure: Anyone disagreeing with your personal opinion is subject to your perceived 'personal insult' complaints. :-)

You have wasted my time, Jimmy. Again. Try using your ploys on some boys.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by RADIO123US on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Len, every time I see your posts, the phrase "babbling incoherently" comes to mind...you know, if you will go see a doctor, he can prescribe some medicine to help you with this problem....
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by URBANGORILLA on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
That's one phrase. Other phrases that come to mind are irrational, mentally and emotionally unstable, belligerant. People like him are seen on the streets and in the subways in New York City talking incoherently to themselves. There is just not enough room in the mental hospitals, so they are on the streets. As long as they aren't a threat to themselves or anyone else, they are usually left alone.

This is how this one should be treated on EHAM and on the radio. Leave him alone. He thrives on the attention everyone is giving him. Leave him alone and ignore him.

73
UG
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KV1M on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Wow, doesn't matter who was right by this point.
That display of 3 page replies ad nauseam makes you both look like total clowns.

I hope you don't chew up that much bandwidth when your on the air! ;)
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY: "By law only the current amateur radio license exams are used for examinations. The FCC doesn't require anyone to be familiar with 'old exams.'"

Yet you claimed some familiarity with them, Len. But you never took them.

N2EY: "The game would be somewhat different if all possible questions and the correct answers were available beforehand, though."

AF6AY: "On the TV show 'Jeopardy' the ANSWERS ARE GIVEN, first. Contestants must supply the questions. :-)"

Same difference, Len. The contestants don't know all the possible questions and correct answers beforehand.

AF6AY: "By WHICH college or university?"

Well, I went to two of them, Len. University of Pennsylvania (where the very first high speed general purpose digital computer, ENIAC, was designed, built and became operational), and Drexel University.

N2EY: "You seem to want to downgrade the accomplishments of others, Len."

AF6AY: "No, just the opposite."

Your words tell a different story.

AF6AY: "I just don't accept HOBBY activities or tests or 'radiosport' contests to be any high value in LIFE to all."

There you go!

AF6AY: "Ability to pass an Amateur Extra test, even with a morse code test, cannot intelligently be classifed as being up with 'greatness' such as earning a Nobel Prize or finding a cure for cancer."

Nobody says they are, Len. You ever earn the Nobel Prize or find any cures for anything?

I didn't think so.

N2EY: "The Extra class license includes all the elements of all the other FCC-issued amateur licenses. Therefore, it is the top class."

AF6AY: "It yields only the most personal options. It is "top" only in the bragging-rights sense."

Nope. It's the top in operating privileges. You ever actually operate that Icom transceiver of yours, Len?

N2EY: "By whom, Len? Who "lobbied" for the Extra? It wasn't ARRL."

AF6AY: "Prove it wasn't the ARRL."

Simple.

ARRL opposed the creation of the Extra back in 1951. Their commentary to FCC said that the Class A/Advanced was adequate as the top license, and that it did not make sense to require more code testing in order to get more 'phone privileges. (In those days, all hams had access to all frequencies, but operating amateur HF 'phone below 25 MHz required a Class A license).

In 1963, when ARRL made its proposal regarding incentive licensing, they proposed a return to the pre-1953 system. Advanceds and Extras would have all priviliges.

Look it up, Len.

The Extra was proposed and promoted by others. Not ARRL.

AF6AY: "Explain why the ARRL maintains a professional lobbying organization in Washington, DC...in addition to a law firm on retainer."

To promote amateur radio. Simple as that.

........................
N2EY: "The modern version of the Amateur Extra license was created by FCC in 1951, to *replace* the old Class A/Advanced license. The Amateur Extra license has been available ever since then = it has never been closed to new issues. In the first couple of decades of its existence, there was an experience requirement, but that was eliminated more than 30 years ago."

AF6AY: "None of those things are applicable in 2007. Why do you write so many words about what WAS?"

You asked for the information. It seems to bother you that I know so much more than you do about some things.

N2EY: "Nowhere in Part 97 is the word "hobby" used."

AF6AY: "Don't quibble about words unless you are a certified etymologist."

Gee, Len, I thought you believed in free speech. Now you want to tell me what to talk about.

Are *you* a certified etymologist? I think not.

AF6AY: "AMATEUR radio is NOT Professional radio. Amateur radio licensees may not accept monetary compensation for radio services rendered as an amateur except in very specified instances noted in Part 97, title 47 C.F.R. It is NOT professional."

And your point is?

AF6AY: "So, if it isn't the same as a HOBBY, what is it, some kind of 'service to humanity?'"

You're making the mistake of assuming that there are only two options - "PROFESSIONAL" and "HOBBY". That's not the case, Len.

Widen your horizons and think outside the box for a change.

N2EY: "There's also the fact that the Morse Code requirement had been removed two days before you took the tests."

AF6AY: "I simply followed the LAW. There was NO LAW saying that amateur radio tests required any morse code cognition tests on 25 February 2007. Even if a morse code test was available that day, it had NO BEARING on any amateur radio testing."

IOW, you waited for decades until the Morse Code test was gone.

N2EY: "And there's the fact that back in January of 2000 you publicly announced that you were "going for Extra out of the box":"

AF6AY: "Did I send out engraved notices to that effect? Take out ads in newspapers or QST? Buy air time on radio or TV broadcasting? :-)"

No, you just announced it in a public forum. But then you didn't follow through for seven years.....

N2EY: "After all, you could have gotten a Technician license with no code test any time after Feb 1991. Or any other amateur license issued by FCC with 5 wpm code since 2000. Medical waivers for 13 and 20 wpm code since 1990."

AF6AY: "Oh, dear, milking another dry cow! Sweetums, I could have gotten an amateur radio license in 1956 or even earlier! All I would have to do was learn morse code, something NOT required in my Army experience nor ever required in any paid-for, non-amateur occupation after 1956."

IOW, you wouldn't do something that didn't have a paycheck attached....

N2EY: "But the Army did send you to school for electronics, Len. And you got on-the-job training. It's not like you taught yourself radio in order to pass the tests at a young age, or had to pay your own way through colleger or technical school to learn enough to pass the exams."

AF6AY: "What schooling did I get...? Do you KNOW what it was? Do you KNOW what the 'on-the-job' training was? What TESTS did I have in the military?

Enough to do the job.

AF6AY: "You were never IN the military, therefore you don't know. <shrug>"

Doesn't matter what military experience someone has, Len. If they disagree with you, they become a target for your attacks.

N2EY: "Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it's a different thing from, say, the eight-year-old who passed the Amateur Extra back in the 1990s, when it required 20 wpm code and five written exams."

AF6AY: "This is the year 2007. What was required in the 1990s is NOT applicable"

Sure it is, Len - for comparison. You would have made that eight year old wait six years to get any class of license...

I think your anger towards other hams is really an expression of jealousy.


AF6AY: "I planned for both exams, prepared myself, had the confidence that I could do it."

Well, fifty-plus years of planning and preparation should have been enough....

N2EY: "It's not like everyone who becomes a ham has a background in electronics. For some of us, ham radio was the beginning."

AF6AY: "Oh, my, here comes that old story of the 'kid in the 7th grade' making his way solo to the center of Philadelphia for his first license at age 13 1/2. :-)"

Who did that, Len? Not me. I was 14 and between 8th and 9th grades before I went to the Philadelphia FCC office for an amateur radio exam. And it wasn't my first one - I was already a ham then.

You sure seem to have trouble with details, Len.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by URBANGORILLA on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY: "I could have gotten an amateur radio license in 1956 or even earlier! All I would have to do was learn morse code, something NOT required in my Army experience nor ever required in any paid-for, non-amateur occupation after 1956."

Anderson, get your facts straight. Commercial use of Morse Code continued into 1999. See below:

02:29 AM ET 07/19/99
Commercial Use of Morse Code Ends
Commercial Use of Morse Code Ends
By CALVIN WOODWARD=
Associated Press Writer=
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Canadian coast guardsman Kevin Layton
remembers using Morse code to talk a ship's crew off Hawaii through
a medical emergency. Former U.S. radioman Ed Brady recalls dots and
dashes coming from a ship that hit ice en route to Denmark until it
sank, all hands lost.
``So distinctive,'' Brady says of the distress signal SOS, for
generations Morse code's chilling call for help from seafarers.
``It just registers.''
Now it's consigned to a storied past.
Months after the code was abandoned under international
convention for ships in trouble, the only private U.S. network of
coastal radio stations using Morse has turned off the transmitters.
With that, mariners and Morse practitioners say, a long
antiquated but still eminently reliable form of communication has
ended in U.S. commerce.
A final ceremonial message was tapped out last week to
Washington, where the first such message originated 155 years ago.
On May 24, 1844, Samuel Morse's question, ``What hath God
wrought?'' pulsed along 35 miles of steel wire to Baltimore.
Simple but slow, the telegraph was overtaken decades ago by the
telephone, by data systems capable of reproducing printed words at
the receiving end, and by satellite for most forms of
communication.
But until the newest generation of satellite and computer
technology took hold, Morse code endured for mariners.
Now e-mail is within easy reach for many at sea and modern ships
have automated emergency beacons designed to allow rescuers to zero
in on them.
``Morse code has finally met its match,'' says Tim Gorman,
operations director for Globe Wireless, the company that dropped
the curtain on commercial radiotelegraphy by ceasing transmissions
at its four stations in Half Moon Bay, Calif., and Slidell, La.
Last week the World War II-era Liberty ship Jeremiah O'Brien,
docked in San Francisco harbor, transmitted a Morse farewell to
President Clinton. ``History is made on this day as we embark on a
new era of communication,'' it began.
The message was translated back into English and sent to the
White House the modern way, via e-mail.
It was acknowledged with an automated e-mail response from the
White House, no hands on deck.
The International Maritime Organization officially phased out
Morse code Feb. 1 for ships in peril, replacing it with the
high-tech Global Maritime Distress and Safety System.
The U.S. Coast Guard ceased Morse operations several years ago
and no longer monitors radio frequencies used for the code. But
Brady, now in the Coast Guard's communications office, says it will
respond if it happens to hear that infamous, now archaic, dot dot
dot, dash dash dash, dot dot dot, meaning SOS.
``There's no government facility listening,'' he said. And now
with the loss of the radio stations, there is ``nobody privately
listening,''
Morse experts say the stations, KFS, KPH, WCC and WNU, were the
last commercial radiotelegraph operations in North America. They
continue to beam shipping information, news and weather to ships at
sea as part of the larger Globe Wireless network using satellites
and high-frequency radio.
The technology now considered a tortoise was an astonishing hare
in its time.
``Information will be literally winged with the rapidity of
lightning,'' the Baltimore weekly Niles National Register reported
after Samuel Morse made his historic transmission. Space and time
were ``annihilated.''
The invention eventually ended the age of news dissemination by
pony express, steamer and courier pigeon.
The Associated Press, formed four years after Morse's
demonstration, rose on the strength of the expanding telegraph as
information that once took days or weeks to go from city to city
sped to its destination in minutes.
Reports from the Civil War, greetings between distant relatives,
dispatches on market prices in far-off places _ all could be sent
in the time it took to reach the telegraph office. At first it
consisted of clicks; later, tones. An international Morse code was
developed that was more suitable for foreign languages.
Radiotelegraphy penetrated the wildest tempests.
``We have seen and heard reports that when a ship gets into a
bad storm and gets into trouble, the first thing to go is satellite
communications,'' said Layton, of the Canadian Coast Guard in
Halifax, Nova Scotia, which monitors busy North Atlantic sea lanes.
``Morse code was right there 'til the ship flipped under the
water.''
Morse continues to be used in poorer parts of the world and is
popular with ham radio enthusiasts. U.S. naval ships seeking silent
communication still use the code with flashing lights.
Another vestige remains, although those who practice it are
surely oblivious.
The rhythmic beat by fans in sports arenas _ dum-dum,
dum-dum-dum, dum-dum-dum-dum, dum-dum _ is Morse code for the
numbers 7 and 3. By telegraphers' shorthand, 73 means best wishes.

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA4KCN on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY "You sure seem to have trouble with details, Len."

Jim I wish you would stop responding to Len. I am trying to make a contact on 40 meters. There is no activity on the bands with all radio amateurs huddled around their computers anxiously awaiting your next reply to poor Len. Doesn't the mercy rule apply on e- ham?

73 de Russ
WA4KCN
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
WA4KCN posted on November 14, 2007:

"N2EY "You sure seem to have trouble with details, Len.""

"Jim I wish you would stop responding to Len. I am trying to make a contact on 40 meters. There is no activity on the bands with all radio amateurs huddled around their computers anxiously awaiting your next reply to poor Len. Doesn't the mercy rule apply on e- ham?"

NAH. Like a woman scorned, Jimmy never lets go and must have his revenge. He has the memory of an effluent. :-)

73, Len AF6AY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 15, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
WA4KCN writes:

"Jim I wish you would stop responding to Len."

Why, Russ? Did I do something wrong?

I write a sentence, he responds with a couple of angry paragraphs. And it's not just me, either - anyone who disagrees gets that treatment.

WA4KCN: "I am trying to make a contact on 40 meters."

My favorite band! Even with my modest setup, QSOs with the West Coast and Europe are pretty easy in the evening.

But 80 has been better these past few nights.

WA4KCN: "There is no activity on the bands with all radio amateurs huddled around their computers anxiously awaiting your next reply to poor Len."

IOW, my responses are more interesting than anything you hear on the air?

WA4KCN: "Doesn't the mercy rule apply on e-ham?"

Mercy rule?

I find it interesting that you don't wish Len would stop responding to me. It's only me that you ask to shut up.

Is it because you know there's a chance I'll do what you ask, but no chance that Len will?

73 de Jim, N2EY


73 de Russ
WA4KCN
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 15, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY: "Here's a simple question for YOU: Do you still beat your wife?"

I'm against domestic violence, Len. I don't do it and I don't tolerate it. I don't "beat" anyone in my family. Never have.

AF6AY: "Does it have a 'simple yes-or-no answer?'"

It's the classic loaded question, Len. My question was whether you believe in free speech, which isn't a loaded question at all.

It seems you have a problem with simple, direct questions.

...................
AF6AY: "You never served in the military of the United States."

N2EY: "How do you know for sure?"

AF6AY: "You once (grudgingly) said you were NOT in any military."

When and where? And what does it matter?

AF6AY: "Your comments to other veterans who happened to be against the code test shows it rather blatantly."

How?

*Your* comments to other veterans show that you treat people who disagree with you the same regardless of military service. Shall I provide more examples?

AF6AY: "But, knowing that most in here were NOT on Usenet newsgroup rec.radio.amateur.policy, you will ask for 'examples.' That lends a facade of righteousness to your 'challenge.' You are hoping all will not see through the facade and notice it is a false front. It's a good tactic, I'll admit, and others have used it before you on other subjects. You may have convinced some, just not all."

What's wrong with asking for examples?

There's no 'facade of righteousness', no 'false front' and no 'tactic' on my part. What you see is what you get.

Len, you have made all sorts of wild claims about things I have supposedly written. But you have not provided any proof of those claims. None at all.

If I really did write the things you claim, it would be a simple task to provide exact quotes and links to prove it. My postings to rrap are all there in
Google Groups for anyone to read.

But you don't provide anything like that, just more wild unproven claims. We're supposed to accept your claims at face value, even when you've been shown to be mistaken time and again. For example, there's the time you claimed that all amateurs with licenses that were expired but in the grace period could operate their stations legally. Shall I post a link to that one?

N2EY: "You insult just about everyone who disagrees with you on-line, Len."

AF6AY : "Tsk. After a dozen years of your typical comment,"

There you go, Len, misremembering things. I've only been on-line since September of 1997. That's a little over 10 years, not 12.

I think that you're confused over who said what to whom. And so you jumble it all together and blame anyone who disagrees with you for all the things anyone ever said to you.

AF6AY: "You have wasted my time"

It's *your* choice, Len.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA4KCN on November 15, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY Mercy rule?

I find it interesting that you don't wish Len would stop responding to me. It's only me that you ask to shut up.

Is it because you know there's a chance I'll do what you ask, but no chance that Len will?
_____

In Arkansas high school football is very popular. When one team is badly outmatched as indicated by the score the game at some point is called off to show mercy on the loser hence the mercy rule. You should invoke the mercy rule in your debate with Len as he appearing knowledgeable yet new to amateur radio is badly out matched. The better man may not have the last word. I admit to enjoying a laugh while reading the comments.

73 de Russ
WA4KCN
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by PLANKEYE on November 15, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I have been told here on E-mail that I have no accountability or respect because I post with no Call.

I have been told here on E-ham that I am a CBer or a Freebander because I post with no Call.

Maybe if folks would take a look around, maybe up this thread a bit, just to remind themselves that Call Signs mean nothing.

It's the person that holds it that makes the difference.

This thread REMINDS ME of the 1970's Friday Night drunk channel.

Maybe I'm wrong, if I am PROVE IT!!

IT STARTS WITH RESPECT!!

PLANKEYE



 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 15, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
plankeye, like me you do not have an email address on your e-ham profile. so any bad email, did not come from
any eham member.

I have more respect for you than the A6 intruder dude killing this post. he has a call, I just refuse to use it cause it bugs him.

This post is way off course. catch you on a post sans a retired spc.mil that should play russian roullet with a fully loaded automatic.

73
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by VE7BDO on November 15, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Wow, just reading all the comments gave me my daily quota of "fun"!

I have been a 'ham' since 1971, although, when my kids were little I took a sabbatical which kinda got extended by 10+ years longer than it should have. Anyhow, I have recently become active again 80-10m HF and 2m. I'm only just starting to figure out all the fancy new modes (even though I am quite computer literate).

I always did like CW. I always did like voice (SSB, AM, FM). Hell, I always did like trying to get my old RTTY terminal running. I even liked climbing up onto the roof (I live in the city - no tower) and muck about with all manner of antennas.

I don't know about PSK31 but CW has often gotten me "through" when voice simply failed. BONUS: you can use a flashlight to send Morse (I'm a sailor), even two bare rubbing together (providing they're the right two wires). It is an elementary, yet highly effective and efficient mode.

Nevertheless, I learned a while back that some people like Fords, others like Chevy's and then there are those that like Dodge's. It's all good!

One last comment: I think N2EY, whom I don't know, is brilliant. I mean that. I enjoyed James' (Jim's?) carefully worded, clearheaded comments on all points. Well Done!

73, Robert
VE7BDO

PS: Here, you can have a license with no code required, unless you want ALL the privileges - then you need it. Makes sense to me.
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 15, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
WA4KCN: "I find it interesting that you don't wish Len would stop responding to me. It's only me that you ask to shut up.

Is it because you know there's a chance I'll do what you ask, but no chance that Len will?"

That's irrelevant and moot in this on-line Moot Court populated by old-time morsemen. N2EY is merciless when he feels he has been 'wronged.' :-)

WA4KCN: "In Arkansas high school football is very popular. When one team is badly outmatched as indicated by the score the game at some point is called off to show mercy on the loser hence the mercy rule. You should invoke the mercy rule in your debate with Len as he appearing knowledgeable yet new to amateur radio is badly out matched."

I ask for no mercy. It is useless to ask when none will be given. I've had years of his onslaughts. :-)

This Moot Court has over-rationalized the subject into yet-another 'morse battle.' As to this 'better man' choice, I'll just point to the FCC decision on morse code testing. I argued effectively against the testing as did others. The FCC sided with us, not the old-time morsemen. It's all there on the FCC ECFS under NPRM 05-235, no 'links' necessary to get to it since anyone can go directly to it on the FCC site. It's not hard to access directly at all.

WA4KCN: "The better man may not have the last word. I admit to enjoying a laugh while reading the comments."

I am glad you enjoyed yourself. Some others take their enjoyment in pain and/or anger. That shows up in here. <shrug>

Oh, and if you check with the U.S. Attorney General, he will tell you that this forum is NOT any sort of court. Maybe in Australia...?

73, Len AF6AY
 
Are You Being Entertained?  
by N2EY on November 16, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
WA4KCN writes: "In Arkansas high school football is very popular. When one team is badly outmatched as indicated by the score the game at some point is called off to show mercy on the loser hence the mercy rule."

Never heard of that before. I learn something new every day! Thanks, Russ. Very interesting!

But I wonder....

Who initiates the use of the mercy rule - the losing team, the winning team, or the officials?

What if the losing team wants to keep playing, for whatever reason? Can the mercy rule be used against their wishes?

Is there a definite number of points/time left formula, or is it left to the judgement of whoever invokes the rule?

What does the mercy rule teach the players and the spectators? That their feelings are more important than how well they play?

I'm really curious about it.

--

In local amateur kids' softball, we have a mercy rule of sorts. Each team cannot score more than a certain number of runs per inning (usually six). When a team scores its sixth run in an inning, the half-inning ends and the other team is up. This is not done to protect the feelings of the players, but rather to keep the length of the games under control because the fields are needed for other games.

This rule is not used during the playoffs, btw. I have seen some truly amazing comebacks in such games.

Football is played against the clock while softball isn't, so there's an apples-and-oranges element there too.

--

WA4KCN: "You should invoke the mercy rule in your debate with Len as he appearing knowledgeable yet new to amateur radio is badly out matched."

I'll take it under advisement. You do make a good point.

At the same time, letting another's mistakes go uncorrected can be a form of approval, and can lead others into trouble. For example, suppose someone wrote that all hams with expired-but-in-the-grace-period licenses could legally operate their stations. (which is definitely NOT true!). Some hams might see that and get themselves into trouble, rather than looking up the actual rules. Particularly if the statement were made by someone who appeared knowledgeable, but wasn't, and if the statement were left unchallenged by other hams who *were* knowledgeable.

WA4KCN: "The better man may not have the last word."

I rarely have the last word.

WA4KCN: "I admit to enjoying a laugh while reading the comments."

Good! Then I have accomplished something worthwhile!

I recall a quote from the film "Gladiator", where Maximus (Russell Crowe) has dispatched all his opponents with great skill, and turns to the audience and shouts:

"ARE YOU BEING ENTERTAINED?"

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: Are You Being Entertained? yeah, sorta  
by WA2JJH on November 16, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
This reminds me of a fews Star Trek episode's.
May the will of LANDREW be upon you!
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 16, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY: "As to this 'better man' choice, I'll just point to the FCC decision on morse code testing."

Just because the government makes a decision doesn't mean it's the right decision nor the best decision.

This same FCC has allowed BPL to proceed despite multiple complaints of harmful interference.

AF6AY: "I argued effectively against the testing as did others. The FCC sided with us, not the old-time morsemen."

The rooster often takes credit for the dawn, too.

FCC has been reducing the testing for amateur licenses (both code and written) for over 30 years:

1975: Proposed nocodetest Communicator class

Late 1970s/early 1980s: End of sending test, failure to prosecute Bash, VEC system and open question pools, multiple-choice and fill-in-the-blank code tests, CSCEs.

1983: Second proposal of a nocodetest license

1987: Old Element 3 for General/Tech split into two elements (old 3A and 3B) which makes it easier to get a Tech.

1990: Medical code test waivers created as a White House favor to a now-dead King of a foreign country

1991: Technician class loses its code test

2000: All code testing except 5 wpm removed, written exams reduced in number of tests and number of questions.

2007: 5 wpm code test removed.

The long-term trend is very clear. It's not something that started a few years ago.

But oddly enough, as the testing has been reduced, the long-term growth in US amateur radio has been reduced too.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 16, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Another trend is that fewer Americans apply to engineering schools.

The U.S. outsources many Jobs. Ever have a Dell technician talk to you from India for example.

I saw on TV a 20/20 or 60 minutes production about the "millenial generation" Kids born a few years before
the year 2000.

They are far worse then the gen-Xrs in the "gimmi dept". They will never say they are wrong. However, they are good with any hand held device.

Well, I will just have to hold my breath for AE666 to
give his usual out of context, minipulated, picyune, and sometimes funny caustic lambasting of the day!
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by RADIO123US on November 16, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY said "The rooster often takes credit for the dawn, too. "

This is too funny..and exactly right !!!

I'll bet if we asked Len, he would tell us he invented ham radio...
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 16, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY: "As to this 'better man' choice, I'll just point to the FCC decision on morse code testing."

N2EY: "Just because the government makes a decision doesn't mean it's the right decision nor the best decision."

...nor the ARRL making a decision... :-)

Here's the general opinion in these forums from most of the old-timer hams:

1. If the FCC is FOR code testing and shows favoritsm to morsemen, it can do NO wrong.

2. If the FCC is AGAINST code testing it does everything wrong.
........................
N2EY: "This same FCC has allowed BPL to proceed despite multiple complaints of harmful interference."

Oh, my, misdirection again, but an easy answer. The FCC has limits on its authority to stop WIRED transmission other than telephone lines and cable TV. See the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The FCC ORIGINALLY asked for Comments on the LEVEL of INCIDENTAL RADIATION produced by BPL. It's all there at the FCC site whether or not you care to see it. A number of different radio services in the USA have limits on incidental radiation and the FCC has effectively regulated those.

Despite the rather obvious technical flaw in the Access BPL plans (different transmission lines of different impedances, originally NEVER designed to carry anything above the LF spectrum in bandspace), the FCC has NO DIRECT POWER TO STOP Access BPL in the legal sense. New laws will have to be enacted to specifically target such systems and give some government agency the legal power to stop such things. This isn't a 'clear and present danger' situation except to HF-using radio amateurs and radio amateurs have no intrinsic right to be sole users of their HF bandspaces. Now a new law could be made to give radio amateurs a clear right to such spectrum, something like is done for radio astronomy receiving sites. But, do not forget that OTHER citizens have as much right - legally - to create new forms of communications which MAY or MAY NOT interfere with other radio services.

I will agree wholeheartedly that Access BPL has a terrible potential to mung all HF radio receiving users. I will NOT agree that the FCC can legally stop them in any way but to restrict their levels of INCIDENTAL RADIATION. The FCC has definitely made regulations valid on incidental radiation in regard to Access BPL systems and forced existing trial system operators to specifically limit the levels of such incidental radiation IN USA-allocated amateur radio bands. A new law to target BPL hasn't been made yet. You are free to write your congresscritter to introduce one. Are you up to it?

No LLD in law is required to see any of that; ordinary civics lessons on USA law will show it once you've removed the emotional blinders from yourself.
..................
AF6AY: "I argued effectively against the testing as did others. The FCC sided with us, not the old-time morsemen."

N2EY: "The rooster often takes credit for the dawn, too."

Meanwhile, the old hens hide out in the chicken house, squawking and squawking, laying eggs. :-)
...................
N2EY: FCC has been reducing the testing for amateur licenses (both code and written) for over 30 years:

Not quite. :-) Strange that you say that here when, up above, you imply that it wasn't "the best decision' nor 'the "right" decision' by the FCC. :-)

N2EY: "1991: Technician class loses its code test"

Quoting the N2EY macro: 'That's plain and simple wrong!' :-)

The NEW (of 1991) Technician class NEVER HAD A CODE TEST TO 'LOSE.' The already-licensed Technician class licensees were renamed 'Technician Plus' and the code test was KEPT for them.

You've arrogantly lumped two classes together with NO regard for the differences and alienated a MAJORITY of USA amateur radio licensees, all on your self-righteous quest to impose restrictions on the largest group of radio amateurs in this land. No-code-test Technician class alone grew to make up 2/5ths of ALL USA amateur radio licensees, 'active' or all.
.................
N2EY: "The long-term trend is very clear. It's not something that started a few years ago."

EVERYTHING in this world has been changing all along, well before the FCC was created in 1934. 'Radio' has changed from its inception as a communications medium in 1896. In the USA of today you will not find another radio service (other than amateur radio) that is using on-off keying CW mode as the primary one for communications. You can only argue that shipping on the Great Lakes 'uses it' but then overlook the regulatory FACT that harbors and communications with private water vessels is done with FM voice on VHF. The state of the 'radio' art has been changing by several orders of magnitude since at least 1920 and most of its users have either abandoned on-off keying CW or never intended to use it when those new radio services were allocated bandspace. 'Radio' doesn't stand still elsewhere, but it seems to in the minds of the 40-year 'veterans' of amateur radio who entered 'the service' as a young teenager.
................
N2EY: "But oddly enough, as the testing has been reduced, the long-term growth in US amateur radio has been reduced too."

Sorry, but the trend there was also clear before the Restructuring of 2000. Despite the population growth in the USA (now somewhere around 300 million), there just weren't enough newcomers to override the normal human attrition rate. Those of the baby-boom birth times were already beginning to atrite before that year and they continue to do so. The Novice class had been steadily declining in numbers since before 2000 and could only be classified as a failure for an 'entry-level' license; the no-code-test Technician class was dubbed the 'entry-level' class and nobody could validly object to the FCC eliminating Novice class from new license grants.

By 2003 normal human attrition was beginning to show up after the peak of all licensee grants then and the trend has been downward, not upward. Right now, nearing the end of 2007, there are enough new no-code-test Technicians to SLIGHTLY override the expirations of all classes. For the first 10 months of 2007, the increase of newcomers over expirations was on an average of about 92 per month. Given that there are over 650 thousand "active" licensees now (not in their grace period), that is a very LOW figure. The 'trend' was there but so many old-timers had their PR blinders on, sorry to say. A few, like Bruce Perens, could see the 'trend' through all the smokescreening of nostalgia and tried to DO things to improve the hobby. Maybe even that foresightedness wasn't enough, but it was SOMETHING. Had NOBODY done anything but demand keeping old standards and practices forever, the numbers of licensees expiring would have continued. That was inevitable but individual denial doesn't allow it to be expressed.

Now, you go and continue to use your radiotelegraphy skills on the ham bands. Nobody is stopping you. You RETAIN your 'privileges' in that regard. You can continue to brag and boast of your amateurism all you want. That isn't going to convince the newer generations of anything but your personality type. You aren't advancing any state of the art in 'radio' by boosting a mode that was in radio 111 years ago and first used in 1844 on wires. What ARE you doing to convince newcomers to enter amateur radio?

AF6AY
 
RE: An out in space type of mind...  
by K6LHA on November 16, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
WA2JJH: "This reminds me of a fews Star Trek episode's. May the will of LANDREW be upon you!"

[reply following the ruler-spanking format used by N2EY]

That's plain and simple wrong. The name is 'Landru' and that episode is from FORTY YEARS AGO.

It is not 'a fews' but "a few." Specifically, the Original Series, only three seasons.

There is no apostrophe in the plural of 'episodes.'

:-)
................................
Forty years ago in USA amateur radio the transistor was slowly being introduced in production ham radio equipment. Vacuum tubes still ruled. SSB had a solid base of users on HF and that would become the number one mode on HF in the next decades. Integrated circuits rule NOW and tubes are used only in high-power final amplifiers. There were NO cell phones that looked like the 'communicator' in the Star Trek future. Now there are, some with flip-tops, by the MILLIONS; one in three Americans has a cell-phone subscription according to the U.S. Census Bureau of 2004. Little two-way radios that operate around 1 GHz (that's 1000 Megacycles to your old brain).

Forty years ago very very few ham rigs had direct frequency read-out and tuning to 1 or 10 Hz increments crystal-controlled. Now it is standard. There were few PLLs and NO DDSs then, no 'memories' of frequency or mode, NO internal microprocessors to do a multitude of tasks on the interior of transceivers. Very very few hams had much in the way of automatic antenna tuners that could set themselves and very few of them had anything like a vector network analyzer. Forty years ago, the average ham tuned his antenna largely by old League manuals and by mouth in arguments using acoustic voice. :-)

Forty years ago there was NO Internet and NO personal computers. But I remember hams back then getting as furious and angry and ornerry and obstinate and arrogant as any do nowadays on-line. :-)

Have a nice day, Potner.

AF6AY
 
RE: CW and the State of Anonymous Gutless Wonders  
by K6LHA on November 16, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
No way did I 'invent radio,' anonymous gutless wonder.

All Fanatical League Believers think it wath Hiram Perthy Maxthim, aka 'T.O.M.'

Jimmy Miccolis, N2EY, pioneered radio in the early days...or so he tries to imply to everyone else. He made his own spark transmitters and crystal sets salvaged from the dumpster outside Philo Farnsworth's lab in Philodelphia.

The first demonstration of 'radio' as a communications means was done in 1896, by Guglielmo Marconi in Italy, by Aleksandre Popov in Russia. Marconi is generally considered to be the first by academics and professionals.

Besides anonymity and cowardice to use your own call, what have YOU demonstrated, 'Radio123us?'

You ARE welcome to access the United States Patent Office and read all you want on U.S. Patent 3,848,191. It was a patent concerning 'RADIO,' not some choo-choo signaling system.

The Bird is Flipped to you.
AF6AY
 
RE: EJEC T,EJECT,EJEC T  
by WA2JJH on November 16, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
that dude is getting boring. AE6--)

You are as funny as glial cell carcinoma!

You aint no Lenny Bruce. You just plain suck in general. They had better comedy at AUSWITZE!
 
RE: Arbeit Macht Frei  
by K6LHA on November 16, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
WA2JJH: "You aint no Lenny Bruce. You just plain suck in general. They had better comedy at AUSWITZE!"

The place you mentioned isn't spelled right. It wasn't a funny place. I bow to those who were there...and Lublin, and Bergen-Belsen, and other places too horrible to contemplate.

It was totally out-of-place to mention the Holocaust in some adolescent middle-schooler's remarks of yours about amateur radio, little man.

Have a nice day, Poser.
 
RE: EJEC T,EJECT,EJEC T  
by URBANGORILLA on November 16, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"that dude is getting boring. AE6--)"

AE6-- keeps going and going and going--like the Energizer bunny.

and we keep going
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

73
UG
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 16, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY: "Just because the government makes a decision doesn't mean it's the right decision nor the best decision."

AF6AY: "Here's the general opinion in these forums from most of the old-timer hams:

1. If the FCC is FOR code testing and shows favoritsm to morsemen, it can do NO wrong.

2. If the FCC is AGAINST code testing it does everything wrong. "

That's a classic strawman argument, Len. Unnamed "old-timer hams" and overgeneralization.

The FCC is not infallible, just in charge. That they made a decision you like doesn't mean it was the right decision.

N2EY: "This same FCC has allowed BPL to proceed despite multiple complaints of harmful interference."

AF6AY: "The FCC has limits on its authority to stop WIRED transmission other than telephone lines and cable TV. See the Telecommunications Act of 1996."

It's the Federal *Communications* Commission, Len. They regulate more than radio. Since the internet is by its very nature interstate commerce, there's a lot FCC can do about BPL - if they want.

AF6AY: "The FCC ORIGINALLY asked for Comments on the LEVEL of INCIDENTAL RADIATION produced by BPL. It's all there at the FCC site whether or not you care to see it. A number of different radio services in the USA have limits on incidental radiation and the FCC has effectively regulated those."

BPL is not a radio service.

AF6AY: "Despite the rather obvious technical flaw in the Access BPL plans (different transmission lines of different impedances, originally NEVER designed to carry anything above the LF spectrum in bandspace), the FCC has NO DIRECT POWER TO STOP Access BPL in the legal sense. New laws will have to be enacted to specifically target such systems and give some government agency the legal power to stop such things."

Incorrect.

FCC has the power to stop sources of interference to licensed radio services. For example, FCC has acted to get electric utilities to solve electrical noise problems caused by power lines, even though FCC has no jurisdiction of electric power utilities as such.

FCC could, if it wanted to, determine that the incidental radiated noise from BPL systems was/is simply unacceptable. So far, they have not done so.

AF6AY: "This isn't a 'clear and present danger' situation except to HF-using radio amateurs and radio amateurs have no intrinsic right to be sole users of their HF bandspaces."

There's so much wrong with that statement that it's hard to know where to begin.

First off, one of the main purposes of the FCC is to protect licensed radio services from interference. That's why there are licenses, technical standards, and enforcement of same. It's also why FCC can force the users/owners of electrical noise-makers to fix them or shut them down. For example, if an electric utility were to install a type of insulator that, by its very design, caused avoidable radio noise, FCC has the authority to make the utility replace them with ones that do not make such noise.

Second, there are many users of the HF radio spectrum besides radio amateurs. BPL could affect all of them.

Third, if BPL is allowed to set a precedent that it's OK to implement poorly-engineered systems, no part of the radio spectrum is safe.

Fourth, radio amateurs *DO* have the right, where granted by treaty, to be the sole users of their bands. For example, 7000-7100 kHz is a worldwide exclusive amateur allocation.

AF6AY: "Now a new law could be made to give radio amateurs a clear right to such spectrum, something like is done for radio astronomy receiving sites."

Existing laws and treaties do that already.

AF6AY: "But, do not forget that OTHER citizens have as much right - legally - to create new forms of communications which MAY or MAY NOT interfere with other radio services."

No, they do not. No one has the right to pollute the EM spectrum with noise. Particularly when the noise is completely unnecessary and avoidable.

You're saying that the BPL folk have as much right to pollute the HF bands with noise as we hams have to use those bands for communications. That's just bunk.

AF6AY: "I will agree wholeheartedly that Access BPL has a terrible potential to mung all HF radio receiving users. I will NOT agree that the FCC can legally stop them in any way but to restrict their levels of INCIDENTAL RADIATION. The FCC has definitely made regulations valid on incidental radiation in regard to Access BPL systems and forced existing trial system operators to specifically limit the levels of such incidental radiation IN USA-allocated amateur radio bands."

Yet even when harmful interference has been documented, FCC has allowed the BPL systems to continue operating. ARRL is now at the point of bringing FCC to court for not enforcing its own rules on BPL operators.

There is no need for BPL. It's a bad idea. DSL, cable internet, Wi-Fi and direct-fiber systems offer better performance without all the problems.

N2EY: FCC has been reducing the testing for amateur licenses (both code and written) for over 30 years:

AF6AY: "Not quite. :-)"

Yes, quite. The testing for the three classes of US amateur radio license available today (2007) is much less than it was in 1977 - both in Morse Code and written testing.

N2EY: "1991: Technician class loses its code test"

AF6AY: "Quoting the N2EY macro: 'That's plain and simple wrong!' :-)"

You're misquoting, Len.

AF6AY: "The NEW (of 1991) Technician class NEVER HAD A CODE TEST TO 'LOSE.' The already-licensed Technician class licensees were renamed 'Technician Plus' and the code test was KEPT for them."

No, that's not what happened at all.

What happened on Feb 14 1991 was that the Technician class license lost its code test. The Technician Plus license class was *NOT* created then - it came along a few years later.

What FCC did was to lump code-tested and non-code-tested Technicians together in one license class. FCC kept a record of which Technicians were code-tested, but this was not a separate license class until later.

Read the Report and Order for PR DOcket 90-55, adopted December 13, 1990 and released December 27, 1990. Pay particular attention to paragraphs 21 and 22, where FCC refuses to create a new Technician Plus license class, saying it is too much work and their computers can't handle it.

AF6AY: "You've arrogantly lumped two classes together with NO regard for the differences and alienated a MAJORITY of USA amateur radio licensees, all on your self-righteous quest to impose restrictions on the largest group of radio amateurs in this land."

Not me. FCC did that in 1991. Later (about 1993), after they got a new computer system and after a lot of complaints by hams, they relented and created the new Technician Plus class license.

And then in 2000, FCC began renewing all Technician Pluses as Technicians. By mid-2010, there should be no Technician Pluses left at all - they will all have been renewed as Technician.

Read the FCC Report and Order to 90-55 and you'll see what really happened.

Do you need a link?

N2EY: "The long-term trend is very clear. It's not something that started a few years ago."

AF6AY: "In the USA of today you will not find another radio service (other than amateur radio) that is using on-off keying CW mode as the primary one for communications."

Len, you just admitted that Morse Code is the primary mode for communications in USA amateur radio today.

Since even *you* say that Morse Code is the primary communications mode for US hams, why did you oppose a simple, basic, 5 wpm test for that mode?

AF6AY: "You can only argue that shipping on the Great Lakes 'uses it' but then overlook the regulatory FACT that harbors and communications with private water vessels is done with FM voice on VHF."

Why should this have anything to do with *amateur* radio, Len? Should hams only do what other radio services do?

AF6AY: "The state of the 'radio' art has been changing by several orders of magnitude since at least 1920 and most of its users have either abandoned on-off keying CW or never intended to use it when those new radio services were allocated bandspace."

Why is that so important to you, Len? You repeat it over and over but don't explain why it should matter to hams.

AF6AY: "'Radio' doesn't stand still elsewhere, but it seems to in the minds of the 40-year 'veterans' of amateur radio who entered 'the service' as a young teenager."

FM broadcast radio can still be received on receivers of the early 1950s, Len. AM broadcast radio can still be received on receivers of the 1920s. There are lots of other examples of where radio has essentially "stood still" for decades.

N2EY: "But oddly enough, as the testing has been reduced, the long-term growth in US amateur radio has been reduced too."

AF6AY: "Sorry, but the trend there was also clear before the Restructuring of 2000. Despite the population growth in the USA (now somewhere around 300 million), there just weren't enough newcomers to override the normal human attrition rate. Those of the baby-boom birth times were already beginning to atrite before that year and they continue to do so. The Novice class had been steadily declining in numbers since before 2000 and could only be classified as a failure for an 'entry-level' license;"

You missed the point entirely, Len.

In the 1960s there were about 250,000 US hams. During that decade, there was very little growth. In fact, the number of US hams did not keep up with the US population growth.

In 1968 and 1969, the rules changes known as "incentive licensing" were implemented, raising the bar for full amateur privileges. Some voices of doom said this would kill amateur radio in the USA.

Yet all through the 1970s the number of US hams grew steadily. That growth continued through the 1980s, despite the alleged "barrier" of Morse Code testing for all US hams. US ham radio grew faster than the US population.

In the 1990s the growth slowed down, despite the Technician losing its Morse Code test in 1991. The late 1990s saw a slight decline in the number of US hams.

The 2000 restructuring brought with it three years of new growth - and then the numbers started back down again.

AF6AY: "By 2003 normal human attrition was beginning to show up after the peak of all licensee grants then and the trend has been downward, not upward."

That's my point, Len. They made the tests easier but it did not result in continued growth.


AF6AY: "Right now, nearing the end of 2007, there are enough new no-code-test Technicians to SLIGHTLY override the expirations of all classes."

How do you figure that, Len?

(the following license numbers are for current unexpired licenses held by individuals)

As of Nov 1 2007 there were 291,761 Technicians (some code-tested, some not) and 22,806 Technician Pluses. That's a total of 314,567 combined.

Back on Feb 22, 2007 there were 293,508 Technicians (some code-tested, some not) and 30,818 Technician Pluses. That's a total of 324,326 combined.

Since Feb 22, the number of Technicians has *dropped* by 1,747 even though all renewing Tech Pluses were added to that class. The number of Technician Pluses dropped by 8,012 in the same period. Total decline was
9,759.

If the number of Technicians (of all flavors)has declined by 9,759, how could they be somehow overriding the expirations of all classes?

Btw, in the same time period, the number of Generals grew from 130,138 to 142,680, (+12,542) and the number of Extras grew from 108,270 to 111,736 (+3,466)

If Technicians are causing the growth, why are their numbers declining, while the other available-to-newcomers classes are growing? Your claim doesn't make sense, given those numbers.

The number of Advanceds and Novices declined, but they couldn't do anything else because those licenses aren't issued new anymore.

AF6AY: "For the first 10 months of 2007, the increase of newcomers over expirations was on an average of about 92 per month. Given that there are over 650 thousand "active" licensees now (not in their grace period), that is a very LOW figure."

That's my point. The old bugaboo of the Morse Code test was removed and....there weren't a lot of newcomers over what there were before.

AF6AY: "Now, you go and continue to use your radiotelegraphy skills on the ham bands."

Well, Len, I worked a PJ2 and an EA5 earlier this evening. On 80 CW with my homebrew 100 watt transceiver.

AF6AY: "Nobody is stopping you. You RETAIN your 'privileges' in that regard. You can continue to brag and boast of your amateurism all you want. That isn't going to convince the newer generations of anything but your personality type."

I'm a Type 5, Len. Which personality type are you?

AF6AY: "You aren't advancing any state of the art in 'radio' by boosting a mode that was in radio 111 years ago and first used in 1844 on wires."

Why not?

You seem to think that the only good things are new things, and that all old things are bad things. Well, that's just not the case.

AF6AY: "What ARE you doing to convince newcomers to enter amateur radio?"

It is counterproductive to try to "convince newcomers to enter amateur radio".

What I do is to show people what amateur radio is - "radio for its own sake". If they are interested, I supply more information, help, etc. If not, I don't badger them and try to push them into it.

What are *you* doing in those lines, Len? Do you talk to newcomers (or should I say, newer-comers) the way you talk to me and folks like KI4PRK?

I hope not!

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by VE7BDO on November 16, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Jim (N2EY) is still my hero.
No, I don't know him. But I'd like to.

--... ...--, -.. . .-. --- -... . .-. -
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 16, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
bah fongu pro rhe nata... neo-natzi swine.
You said something about the GALLAEN SOCIETY"
You make racist remarks that are not meant as jokes.
Whatsa matter...ya little pishah?
So your remqark...well my first wife was a jew, was indeed anti-semitism in the quasi-optical paradyme.

Et shold sticken et cup -N- kisheme en tokus!
alta cocoa.

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 16, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
How many DR JACK KOVORKIAN gift certificates did you get last year? Now that IS funny!

My advice to AF666(what ever, I never once gave out ANY information you flim-flamed us with)

Do not consider a career in Stand up comedy.
1)YOU WILL BE TOLD TO SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!
2)YOUR JOKES REALLY SUCK! They suck at 1X10^99 power.
3)OLD BUZZARD, ONLY PERFORM AT A PLACE WHERE THERE IS A 10 DRINK MINIMUM.
4)Stop smoking crack with toothless crackhead hoe's!

The days of the magnetron are over. Today ILA's are used.(Injection locked amplifiers.) I had the 6 week Harris/Farinon class in Redwood Ca. Of course you blithering schumck, I know Penton Publishing.

How do you keep a moronic gamma classified alcoholic
in SSuspence.............I will tell you next week :)
Have a nice day and 73 ;)
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by URBANGORILLA on November 17, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
More proof of Leonard H. Adnerson's Anti-Semitism:

He compares the Irgun with Hamas. I agree with you. What the Irgun did wasn't pretty. But the Irgun didn't intentionally target innocent civilians (women and children). Irgun's goal was to drive the British from the Holy Land and establish a Jewish state. Hamas' goal is to kill and destroy as many Jews as they can, drive the remaining ones from what they refer to as Palestine (a name given to what was then known as Judea by the occupying Roman forces) and establish a Muslim "Palestinian" state.

Anderson, do you justify Hamas' tactics and actions? FYI, Hamas is recognized by the US government and the governments of most other nations as a terrorist organization. Unlike Arafat's Fatah faction, which Israel is willing to negotiate with regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state, it is not possible to negotiate with Hamas because they are hell-bent on Israel's destruction. Are you sympathetic to Hamas' cause, Anderson? How about Hezbollah? Do you like what they do also?

BTW, isn't it something how the man in Irgun that ordered the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, later became Prime Minister of Israel and ironed out a lasting peace between Israel and Egypt. I would hardly call Menachem Begin a terrorist. It was Muslim terrorist factions In Egypt linked with Al Quaida that didn't like this and assassinated Anwar Sadat.

Anderson, Anti-Semitism just oozes out of you. The more you deny it, the more you keep proving it to be true.

UG
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 17, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
VE7BDO writes: "It's all good!"

Well said! Yes, it is.

In fact, one of the things that has kept me interested in amateur radio for 40+ years is that there is so much to do as a ham.

VE7BDO: "One last comment: I think N2EY, whom I don't know, is brilliant. I mean that."

Thank you, Robert.

But I'm just a ham with a bit of information, some education, a point of view, an old computer and an internet connection. Plus a station you can see by googling my callsign.

VE7BDO: "I enjoyed James' (Jim's?) carefully worded, clearheaded comments on all points. Well Done!"

Thanks again! One thing I have learned online is how to write better. Also how to type faster...

VE7BDO: "Here, you can have a license with no code required, unless you want ALL the privileges - then you need it. Makes sense to me."

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but IIRC the Canadian rules changed a short time back (last year?). As I read it, the Morse Code test still exists in Canada, but is no longer an absolute requirement if you get a high-enough score on the written exam. IOW, there are two paths to the license - with-code-test and without- code-test, but the without-code-test path requires a higher written test score (80% or better?) than the with-code-test path.

I proposed such a system in my comments to FCC, as an alternative, but they simply dropped the code test completely.

73 es TNX de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: Fencing Lessons?  
by K6LHA on November 17, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY: "That's a classic strawman argument, Len. Unnamed "old-timer hams" and overgeneralization."

Heh heh heh heh. MOST of the postings on e-ham.net article forums are done by old-timers in amateur radio. Are they all 'strawmen?' :-)
..............
N2EY: "The FCC is not infallible, just in charge. That they made a decision you like doesn't mean it was the right decision."

Tsk. That the FCC made a decision YOU DON"T LIKE doesn't mean it was 'wrong.' :-)

[gotta love it when some get on their self-righteous donkey thinking it is a battle charger steed]

Note: The FCC is in charge...of USA civil radio regulating. By act of Congress in 1934, updated in 1996.

That includes INCIDENTAL RADIATION that has the POTENTIAL for interfering with existing radio services. Nowhere is it written that ANY source of incidental radiation is ALWAYS an interference source.

The amount/level of incidental radiation has been quantified and published as law and is included in many radio services' Parts in Title 47 C.F.R. [that has nothing to do with the FCC decision to eliminate the code test for amateur radio license examinations...but apparently your ruler hasn't been able to hit any knuckles so you are very miffed...:-) ]
.............
N2EY: "It's the Federal *Communications* Commission, Len. They regulate more than radio. Since the internet is by its very nature interstate commerce, there's a lot FCC can do about BPL - if they want."

...then again you contradict yourself by:

N2EY: "BPL is not a radio service."

The FCC has been mandated by Congress of the USA to handle Interstate Communications. That's been around since 1934 but was further clarified by the forced breakup of AT&T and then later, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, among the major revisions.

Access BPL does NOT just handle Internet data. That is mostly de facto but NOT de jure. Tsk, you've been thrown out of Moot Court more than once.

The FCC HAS PUBLISHED REGULATIONS ON INCIDENTAL RADIATION IN REGARDS TO ACCESS BPL. They have enforced some of the violations of INCIDENTAL RADIATION that exceeds the published regulations on Access BPL *and* several other electronics. You should expand your visibility by taking off your League blinders and seeing what the rest of the radio world is involved in before spouting off like the usual amateur guru-wannabe.

What you are oblivious to (obviously) is that the REST of the radio world is HUGE and the REST of the communications world is HUGE. It is not only huge but also getting to be incredibly COMPLEX. The FCC does not exist to solely serve some needs of radio amateurs. It is chartered to serve the entire country.
Some in the USA want to provide data services to others through a system that is NOT 'radio' and essentially one-way most of the time. That these folks are going about it in a technically-deficient (indeed 'head up their ass' thinking) way, using 'wires' that were never, ever designed to handle huge bandwidths (beyond 60 Hz) and radiating RF from hell to breakfast is not the LEGAL point. It has to be PROVEN in a court of law 'beyond a shadow of a doubt.' That PROOF is what the FCC started to do with its published levels of incidental radiation. On most everything that can possibly radiate RF, including Access BPL.

In the FCC's REQUESTED Commentary on BPL, they asked for METHODS to quantify or at least standardize the TEST METHODS to PROVIDE the proof. The FCC is very legally oriented, as it should be for any regulatory agency. They are VERY aware of the legal system and how arguments on BOTH SIDES have gone and can go. The average radio amateur or even radio hobbyist (sans license) has NO real experience in law and probably hasn't even served on a jury (a civic responsibility not requiring any radio license or in-depth knowledge of electronics). So here you are, being judge, jury, and executioner making little more than an emotional appeal to a court on a matter of your radio hobby time is being interfered with by nasty capitalistic data providers (who don't realize your collective 'rights' to play radio professional are 'sacrosanct'). Generally the courts would toss you out on such an attitude, along with your 'law books' published by the League. YOU HAVE TO *PROVE* YOUR POINT *LEGALLY* IN ORDER TO WIN. Sheer emotion doesn't cut it. Self-righteousness doesn't cut it.
....................
N2EY: "FCC has the power to stop sources of interference to licensed radio services. For example, FCC has acted to get electric utilities to solve electrical noise problems caused by power lines, even though FCC has no jurisdiction of electric power utilities as such."

Electric power distribution lines are not radio services nor were they ever designed to carry BPL. Go back to the early part of the 1950s. Television broadcasting is a licensed radio service and was
then. Radio amateurs of the time were very definitely causing interference to ordinary citizens trying to
watch TV. Ordinary citizens wayyyyy outnumbered radio amateurs then, still do. Ordinary citizens didn't have anything like the ARRL to 'protect' them. What was the FCC required to do then? 'Protect' the radio amateurs and their self-righteous 'rights' as a licensed radio service by BANNING an existing licensed radio service known as broadcasting? No, the FCC created revised standards for both radio services and increased its own workload to enforce both.

There's a parallel to radio amateurs versus BPL today. Radio amateurs want to BAN BPL on largely emotional, self-righteous grounds. Sorry, the courts need more than that...it takes hard work and some professional-standard metrology methods to PROVE the interference levels...plus some legal digging to PROVE that radio amateurs have a 'right' to play with their radios...plus the ability to counter OTHER citizens on ALL those areas IN COURT. Remember, that those OTHERS also have professional-standard metrology methods and attornies who are versed in law and are citizens just like radio amateurs.

You've said yourself that "BPL isn't a radio service." Duhhhh. You finally realized that? :-)
...................
N2EY: "FCC could, if it wanted to, determine that the incidental radiated noise from BPL systems was/is simply unacceptable. So far, they have not done so."

Incorrect.
...................
N2EY: "First off, one of the main purposes of the FCC is to protect licensed radio services from interference. That's why there are licenses, technical standards, and enforcement of same."

That's more of your 'duhhhhh.' :-)

You've said yourself that "BPL isn't a radio service." :-)

Apparently you are so wrapped up in your sanctity that you've forgotten that it works both ways. The BPL folks could have charged that any radio amateur with interfering with THEIR operation. It's acceptable to any court if it can be PROVEN.

Don't worry a great deal. The trial BPL systems are a technical monstrosity that will prove itself unfit both technically and monetarily. The corporate structures behind that monstrosity ALSO have the legal and technical smarts to do their thing in the courts IF and only IF they wanted to. Court battles take time and money and the BPL has a harder battle NOW in competing in the data-provider marketplace with other
data-providers like wideband cable, Wi-Fi, et al. Just remember that IT WORKS BOTH WAYS IN COURT.
...............
N2EY: "Second, there are many users of the HF radio spectrum besides radio amateurs. BPL could affect all of them."

Oh? You 'know' this from playing ham games on 40m CW? :-) Jimmy, I've BEEN in those other parts of the HF radio spectrum OTHER than amateur bands, recently and long ago. The FCC has the task of regulating ALL USA civil 'radio,' not just the HF ham playground.
You didn't see the regulations regarding SPECIAL PROVISIONS on BPL spectrum to protect, repeat PROTECT radio amateurs? Of course not. You are too busy getting your emotions worked up and trying to play guru on all things.
..................
N2EY: "Third, if BPL is allowed to set a precedent that it's OK to implement poorly-engineered systems, no part of the radio spectrum is safe."

That is one of the stupidest conspiracy-theory germs seen in a long time. :-) But, it is very emotionally-
sustaining to the self-righeous ones in the amateur radio minority.

You are implying that USA amateur radio - which allows home construction of radio transmitters - are all well-engineered systems? You have professional-standard metrology equipment to 'prove' that your amateur transmitters stay within technical requirements at all times? I don't think so. Very few radio amateurs have that. Most rely on well-engineered READY-BUILT transmitters and just hope that they remain so. If you want to enforce the ban against 'proorly-engineered systems,' then you are striking for all radio amateurs being required to use ONLY type-accepted equipment. If that happened, you would LOSE your bragging rights about building your own rig out of dumpster parts. :-)
...................
N2EY: "Fourth, radio amateurs *DO* have the right, where granted by treaty, to be the sole users of their
bands. For example, 7000-7100 kHz is a worldwide exclusive amateur allocation."

Incorrect. The allocations for frequency bands and modes/modulations in the USA are enforced by the FCC, not by some 'treaty.' FCC is the regulatory agency here. Are the 5 channels on 60m granted 'exclusive
rights' by the ITU? :-)
........................
N2EY: "You're saying that the BPL folk have as much right to pollute the HF bands with noise as we hams have to use those bands for communications. That's just bunk."

Incorrect, bunky. :-) BPL has every right to communicate data on power lines. It doesn't have any rights to radiate RF in excess of published law standards in the USA.
.....................
N2EY: "Yet even when harmful interference has been documented, FCC has allowed the BPL systems to continue operating. ARRL is now at the point of bringing FCC to court for not enforcing its own rules on BPL operators."

The ARRL can dip into its profits barrel and afford some legal court action. I think they know how to do it. :-)

Are you going to be an 'advisor' to them on that? :-) [it's a short commuter trip from Philly to DC, by either rail or air, you should be there at least providing moral support in addition to your 'expertise'?]
.......................
N2EY: "Read the FCC Report and Order to 90-55 and you'll see what really happened. Do you need a link?"

Gee, you sound like Marley's ghost of Christmas Past! :-) [you ARE a little Dickens!]

Thank you ever so much but I've had a copy of FCC 90-55 for quite a while. That issue was settled 16 years ago, but you can't let go of anything that displeases you, can you? :-)

BTW, FCC 90-55 has nothing to do with BPL, your pet-for-the-moment misdirection. Are you seguing into another mighty tirade about the PAST? :-)
................
AF6AY: "In the USA of today you will not find another radio service (other than amateur radio) that is using on-off keying CW mode as the primary one for communications."

N2EY: "Len, you just admitted that Morse Code is the primary mode for communications in USA amateur radio today."

No, sweetums, not in your wet dreams did I say that. Good ploy, though. Might yield you another Hero Medal for sticking up for the Mighty Morphin Morsemen. :-)
..................
N2EY: "Why should this have anything to do with *amateur* radio, Len? Should hams only do what other radio services do?"

Hams should be cooked well and, preferrably, be spiral-sliced and with a nice pineapple sauce on the side.. Radio amateurs - according to Miccolis - have to endlessly repeat the 1930s standards and practices of USA amateur radio on into the foreable future, content in their self-righteous superiority as pioneer champions of the hamways...always Always ALWAYS favoring on-off keying CW mode as the ultimate superior indisputable epitome of amateur radio operation! :-)
................
N2EY: "You missed the point entirely, Len."

No, you didn't thrust your epee at the right spot. :-) Fencing-wise, I think you epee-ed in your pants.
...............
N2EY: "That's my point, Len. They made the tests easier but it did not result in continued growth."

'How do you figure that,' Jimmy? :-)
.................
N2EY: "(the following license numbers are for current unexpired licenses held by individuals)"

Jimmy, all you've done is repeat what the ARRL License totals page has. You have NOT counted in the EXPIRATIONS which www.hamdata.com does, you have NOT counted in the NEW licenses, all because the ARRL doesn't show that. Why can't you show that? It, too, is statistical data.

One reason why you restrict your statistical data might be that you want to 'cook the books' to make your odd little points...something which you've tried long ago to 'prove' that code testing 'should have been continued.' BTW, you've stopped posting those monthly service-to-ham-humanity totals to rec.radio.amateur.policy. Are you ever going to resume that 'service?'
..................
N2EY: "You seem to think that the only good things are new things, and that all old things are bad things. Well, that's just not the case."

You are telepathic?!? Are you 'Lamont Cranston, the Shadow' on the newsgroups? :-)

I say directly what I want to say. YOU don't have any 'power' to 'interpret' that, yet you continually try to do so.
................
N2EY: "It is counterproductive to try to "convince newcomers to enter amateur radio"."

REALLY?!? By golly, that is a 'keeper' on you, Jimmy. It's so good it ought to be laminated and kept in the wallet!

Somehow I don't think that's quite the attitude to take...but, what they heck, you all consider me just a
'newcomer' to radio. How can I know anything as much as you all? :-)
.............
N2EY: "Do you talk to newcomers (or should I say, newer-comers) the way you talk to me and folks like KI4PRK?"

<shrug> I treat ALL 13-year-old mentalities the same way, your royal haughtiness.

AF6AY
 
RE: Fencing Lessons?  
by RADIO123US on November 17, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY said "Tsk. That the FCC made a decision YOU DON"T LIKE doesn't mean it was 'wrong.' :-)"

Sorry Len, just because you agree with it doesn't make it right either...in fact, based on what you have already written, the average ham here would question your judgement on MOST matters....

AF6AY said "<shrug> I treat ALL 13-year-old mentalities the same way, your royal haughtiness"

The only one here that seems to have a "haughtiness" issue is YOU...Len, we've seen MANY newbie "know-it alls" like you come and go on this site...you are are NOT unique...eventually, all these newbies "know it alls" end up getting bored, because no one cares about their opinion anymore....that's the point you are at right now...so, save yourself some time and go away....
 
RE: Fencing Lessons?  
by URBANGORILLA on November 17, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"...based on what you have already written, the average ham here would question your judgement on MOST matters...."

Most matters? I believe "all matters" would be more accurate.

"The only one here that seems to have a 'haughtiness' issue is YOU...Len, we've seen MANY newbie 'know-it alls' like you come and go on this site...you are are NOT unique...eventually, all these newbies "know it alls" end up getting bored, because no one cares about their opinion anymore....that's the point you are at right now...so, save yourself some time and go away...."

This obnoxious newbie know-it-all is like the smell of burning tires in my nostrils. I don't see anyone coming to his defense. He makes no useful contribution to ham radio at all. All I see from AF6AY is an unquenchable hatred for CW, any ham who wanted Element 1 retained, and anyone who disagrees with anything he says in general.

It just goes to prove that not everyone with an electronics background and an interest in radio would make a good ham. Despite Len's knowledge of electronics, have you seen anything constructive from him? Has he contributed any technical expertise on this or any thread on this site? All that I can see from him is strife, venom and hatred. The only difference between Len and the average CB-er is that Len keeps his language basically clean, whereas the CB-er is foul-mouthed. Len has the same belligerent "know-it-all" "king-of-the-hill" "I'm better than you" attitude that the typical CB-er has.

Go away, Lenny. You are not wanted in ham circles and you will never be accepted- not with your piss-poor attitude and your raging anger. Ham radio is an international hobby. Hams accept anyone regardless of race, nationality, religion or ethnic cultural background. There is no room for any kind of prejudice among hams. Your Anti-Semitism will not be tolerated.

UG
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by VE7BDO on November 17, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY said, "Correct me if I'm mistaken, but IIRC the Canadian rules changed a short time back (last year?). As I read it, the Morse Code test still exists in Canada, but is no longer an absolute requirement if you get a high-enough score on the written exam. IOW, there are two paths to the license - with-code-test and without- code-test, but the without-code-test path requires a higher written test score (80% or better?) than the with-code-test path."

You are correct, Jim. Industry Canada (our FCC) did modify the requirements in July 2005 re: full privileges below 30mhz as stated.

It's interesting; however, their partial reasoning behind keeping Code as one additional requirement. What IC said in their preamble was:

Prior to analyzing the elements of the RAC proposal, the Department first assessed the validity of the following three factors presented by the RAC as fundamental arguments:

1. There must be an awareness of the impact of this action (i.e. elimination of the Morse code requirements) upon existing reciprocal agreements and other arrangements which permit Canadian radio amateurs to operate in other countries and foreign radio amateurs to operate in Canada.

2. The Morse code examination must continue to be available in Canada for the benefit of radio amateurs who may require such a qualification for operation in another country, and for those who wish to acquire skill in the use of Morse code.

3. Operation in the HF bands requires special knowledge and skills not necessary for most operations in the bands above 30 MHz. This difference should be reflected in the examination arrangements.

Industry Canada has accepted the validity of these three factors, and consequently, they were taken as the basis from which the specific recommendations were assessed.

From my peon's position here next to the mighty Pacific, it seems they got "it" right, IMHO, of course.

73, Robert
 
TVI and Bad Analogies  
by N2EY on November 17, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
In order to keep post size under control, I'm anwering different parts separately.

AF6AY wrote: "Go back to the early part of the 1950s."

Gee, Len, you give me a hard time about "living in the past" but now you give an example from more than a half century ago.

AF6AY: "Television broadcasting is a licensed radio service and was then."

Yup - in fact, TV broadcasting began in the 1930s. Right here in Philadelphia, Philo T. Farnsworth demonstrated broadcast TV in 1934 - five years before RCA's World's Fair exhibit.

AF6AY: "Radio amateurs of the time were very definitely causing interference to ordinary citizens trying to watch TV."

That's not the whole story.

The interference of those times came from three sources:

1) Amateur transmitters whose spurious emissions (usually harmonics) were in the TV channels.

2) TV receivers of inadequate selectivity that would
pick up amateur signals, usually due to fundamental overload.

3) Spurious signals generated by external sources, such as dissimilar metal junctions, that generated harmonics and/or intermodulation products which fell in the TV channels.

Of these, only 1) was the responsibility of the amateur.

Not all TVI was the result of "Radio amateurs of the time....causing interference"

AF6AY: "Ordinary citizens wayyyyy outnumbered radio amateurs then, still do."

So what? Their numbers alone do not automatically mean they have preference. If the interference was the result of inadequate receiver selectivity or dynamic range, that's not the amateur's problem.

AF6AY: "Ordinary citizens didn't have anything like the ARRL to 'protect' them."

They had the TV manufacturers and broadcasters. It should be remembered that the manufacturers frequently did dumb things like designing TV sets with 21 MHz IFs, and leaving out shielding and high-pass filters which would have added a few cents to the cost of the sets but would have solved many interference problems.

Often it was amateur groups like ARRL and individuals like Phil Rand, W1DBM, and Lew McCoy, W1ICP, who helped solve interference problems.

AF6AY: "What was the FCC required to do then? 'Protect' the radio amateurs and their self-righteous 'rights' as a licensed radio service by BANNING an existing licensed radio service known as broadcasting?"

The FCC's job was to protect *both* radio services from avoidable interference. Which was really an engineering problem, because it was shown again and again that TV and amateur radio could coexist without interference if both the TV set and the amateur station were properly engineered.

Nobody asked that TV be banned, only that the TV sets and amateur transmitters be adequately engineered.

Ever hear of "quiet hours", Len?

AF6AY:"No, the FCC created revised standards for both radio services and increased its own workload to enforce both."

What revised standards? Was there a certification process for TV sets or amateur transmitters in the 1950s or 1960s, to prove they were adequately designed to avoid interference? Nope.

What happened was that both TV sets and amateur transmitters got better, because they had to get better.

But the whole TVI situation is a bad analogy, and not applicable to the BPL situation. With TVI, the solution was to eliminate the spurious emissions of amateur transmitters that had them, and to improve the selectivity and dynamic range of TV receivers that were inadequate. IOW, there was nothing wrong with the basic concept of either TV broadcasting and amateur radio - they just needed the application of good engineering practices.

BPL is different. It is *inherently* a bad idea. A poor engineering concept from the get-go. It's not fixable by the application of good engineering practices because it is inherently a poor engineering practice to put high-frequency RF on unshielded unbalanced power wires and expect it not to radiate and cause interference.

And yet the *professionals* who dreamed up BPL and have been pushing it for several years ignore that plain and simple fact.

If you want an analogy, consider this one:

Suppose that, back in those early 1950s, radio amateurs had taken the stance that TVI problems were overstated and not caused by amateur transmitters in any case.

Suppose that the amateurs of those days had simply refused to do things like shield their transmitters, filter their RF output, bypass and suppress, etc. Would the FCC have stood for that? I think not.

Yet that's exactly what BPL installations do. The power wires radiate because they aren't shielded or balanced for RF. And that incidental radiation has been shown to cause harmful interference to amateur radio operations. The old Part 15 regulations are inadequate because they were intended to deal with point sources, not systems that extend for miles.

73 de Jim, N2EY







 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by K8KAS on November 18, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Ham radio is dieing, all you have to do is visit a Ham Fest in your area, look at the age of the ham's attending, look for a young person in the group, 1 or 2 if your lucky. The Fest's themselves are smaller and smaller every year, I just came from the Ft Wayne Fest and it went from two floors packed to one main floor about 3/4 full and half of that was PC junk and dolls. Listen for some technical talk on the bands, find someone who built anything electronic, the new guys can't even build a wire dipole anymore. Folks who complete a Basic 125 Electronics course in a local CC are PHd's compaired to the new hams I hear on the bands today.
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W3DBB on November 18, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
D.R.Q. makes some good points.

Ham radio has been in decline for decades for a number of reasons. Postwar prosperity and the rise of the electronics industry brought commercial television to the masses and the advent of t.v.i. These factors fueled the trend away from building receivers and later transmitters. In the late 1950's the 11 meter Novice Band was reassigned as a Class D Citizen's Band. I'm sure this seemed relatively innocuous at the time, as the prescence of the Industrial, Scientific, and Medical Service on the band made it not well utilized by the Novices. Later on the assignment of the Class D Citizen's Band at 27 megaHertz would prove to have hugely unfavorable consequences. Hindsight is always 20:20.

In the 1960's commercially built amateur s.s.b. transceivers proved popular and were difficult if not impossible to duplicate economically by the amateur homebrewer. This evolved to hybrid circuitry, followed by the first all solid-state ham rigs. As the technology evolved to ever larger integrated circuits and surface mount technology, there were virtually no homebrewers of amateur transceivers left.

When C.B. reached a critical size in the mid-70's is when our problems began. Quite a few of them migrated to the Amateur Radio Service, most of them legitimately, but a sizeable chunk paid someone else to take their test(s). This had also been a problem before the C.B. migration began.

Some of these folks brought their C.B. operating practices with them to the amateur bands, and they are prevalent today on any popular amateur band. About the time the United States of America decided to go out of business (1981), the F.C.C. declared they weren't going to have all that much to do with the Amateur Radio Service anymore.

Enabling legislation was signed into law to allow radio amateurs examine radio amateurs and prospective hams for their license (upgrade), an inherent conflict of interest if ever there were.

Divide and conquer is as successful a strategy now as it has been since the beginning of mankind. I'm referring to disastrous rulemaking from the F.C.C. in the form of the enhanced Novice (1986) and no code Technician (1991). This gave rise to factions; check out what our Founding Fathers had to say about factions. The no code Technician license, in particular, created an underclass of amateur radio operators and created further division among existing licensees.

Gutting the Morse testing requirement as was done at the last restructuring (in the year 2000) created a HUGE rift no one has addressed. This is when activity, both on air and at the hamfests, really began to die off. The sunspot cycle peaked around 2001-2002. The dearth of on-air amateur activity can't be blamed on the sunspots, which will become glaringly apparent at the next sunspot peak, with Morse testing now eliminated, to boot! Maybe some of this will begin to sink in at A.R.R.L. headquarters but by then I fear it will be too late.

I've stayed away from League-bashing until late in my editorial comment, but they deserve special consideration. I can only conclude the executive leadership of this non-profit organization is clueless when it comes to amateur radio matters.

For decades A.R.R.L. pushed c.w. to the exclusion of all else. The League was slow to embrace f.m. and they refuse to acknowledge a.m. operation has seen a slow yet steady growth over the past 30 years.

Now, A.R.R.L. is ready to kick c.w. and all analog modes of amateur operation to the curb in their pursuit of an all-digital Amateur Radio Service. A.R.R.L. lacks the testicular fortitude to explain clearly to the F.C.C. and we among the lowly masses just what the intent is behind the series of recent Trojan Horse petitions they have made to the F.C.C.

It is clear A.R.R.L. wants to install itself at the head of the amateur radio table. They want to run roughshod over the Amateur Radio Service spectrum with their amateur radio r.f. servers, presumably to sell "memberships" to the many hams challenged by clauses, covenants, and restrictions. They even have a funny name for this- "Hinternet", I believe it is called!

 
RE: Fencing Lessons?  
by N2EY on November 18, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY previously wrote: "In the USA of today you will not find another radio service (other than amateur radio) that is using on-off keying CW mode as the primary one for communications."

N2EY: "Len, you just admitted that Morse Code is the primary mode for communications in USA amateur radio today."

AF6AY: "No, .... not in your wet dreams did I say that."

Yes, you did, Len. Here's the exact quote:

"In the USA of today you will not find another radio service (other than amateur radio) that is using on-off keying CW mode as the primary one for communications."

You're saying that no current USA radio service uses "on-off keying CW mode as the primary one for communications" - with one exception: Amateur Radio.

Did you make a mistake writing that?

Of course, "on-off keying CW mode" is just your way of avoiding writing "Morse Code".

That means today's Amateur Radio, in the USA, *does* use Morse Code as the primary mode for communications. Even *you* admit it - even though it may have been a Freudian slip on your part.

AF6AY: "Good ploy, though."

Not a ploy at all, Len. You wrote the words, I just quoted 'em. Perhaps it bothers you that you have revealed the true role of Morse Code in Amateur Radio today.

Consider this statement:

"In the manufactured amateur radio equipment of today, you will not find any use (other than in some RF power amplifiers) of vacuum tubes in the signal path."

Same sentence structure, and same logical construct:

Vacuum tubes *are* used in some RF power amplifiers manufactured for amateur radio today.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 18, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I just took one those those "ON LINE EXTRA" practice exams. I got an 87 on the test. I did the test cold. No study at all.

The New extra is as easy as the Tech test of 30 years ago!!

No wonder I encounter "MINUTE RICE EXTRA'S" in the advanced/extra phone segments. They sound like CBers
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by RADIO123US on November 18, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
WA2JJH said "No wonder I encounter "MINUTE RICE EXTRA'S" in the advanced/extra phone segments. They sound like CBers "

It's because they ARE still CBer's.....and as you and I both know, just passing a VERY simple exam doesn't make a person a "ham"...AF6AY is a very good example of one that passed the exam, but never became a "ham"....
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 18, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
KA3TGV wrotes: "Ham radio has been in decline for decades for a number of reasons. Postwar prosperity and the rise of the electronics industry brought commercial television to the masses and the advent of t.v.i. These factors fueled the trend away from building receivers and later transmitters."

They weren't the only factors. After WW2, kits and surplus were easier, faster and usually less expensive routes to putting a station on the air than homebrewing from new parts.

KA3TGV: "In the late 1950's the 11 meter Novice Band was reassigned as a Class D Citizen's Band."

No, it wasn't.

Novices had access to 11 meters only from 1951 to 1954. 11 meters was reassigned to cb in 1958.

KA3TGV: "In the 1960's commercially built amateur s.s.b. transceivers proved popular and were difficult if not impossible to duplicate economically by the amateur homebrewer. This evolved to hybrid circuitry, followed by the first all solid-state ham rigs. As the technology evolved to ever larger integrated circuits and surface mount technology, there were virtually no homebrewers of amateur transceivers left."

Blame Art Collins.

But there are a few homebrewers left:

http://hometown.aol.com/n2ey/myhomepage/

http://www.arrl.org/qex/2007/11/drent.pdf

There are also kits:

http://www.elecraft.com

KA3TGV: "When C.B. reached a critical size in the mid-70's is when our problems began. Quite a few of them migrated to the Amateur Radio Service, most of them legitimately, but a sizeable chunk paid someone else to take their test(s). This had also been a problem before the C.B. migration began."

Do you have *any* solid evidence to back up this accusation?

KA3TGV: "Some of these folks brought their C.B. operating practices with them to the amateur bands, and they are prevalent today on any popular amateur band."

I don't hear "cb operating practices" on CW, though.

KA3TGV: "About the time the United States of America decided to go out of business (1981), the F.C.C. declared they weren't going to have all that much to do with the Amateur Radio Service anymore.

Enabling legislation was signed into law to allow radio amateurs examine radio amateurs and prospective hams for their license (upgrade), an inherent conflict of interest if ever there were."

The VE system started in 1983. But hams had been volunteer examiners since at least the 1930s. Routine Novice and Technician license tests were done by volunteer examiners from 1954 onward, and the old Class C/Conditional goes back to the 1930s.

So it hams can't be trusted to give other hams the exams, the problem goes back a very long time.

KA3TGV: "Divide and conquer is as successful a strategy now as it has been since the beginning of mankind. I'm referring to disastrous rulemaking from the F.C.C. in the form of the enhanced Novice (1986) and no code Technician (1991). This gave rise to factions; check out what our Founding Fathers had to say about factions."

Were there no factions in amateur radio before those changes?

KA3TGV: "The no code Technician license, in particular, created an underclass of amateur radio operators and created further division among existing licensees."

How?

KA3TGV: "Gutting the Morse testing requirement as was done at the last restructuring (in the year 2000) created a HUGE rift no one has addressed. This is when activity, both on air and at the hamfests, really began to die off. The sunspot cycle peaked around 2001-2002. The dearth of on-air amateur activity can't be blamed on the sunspots, which will become glaringly apparent at the next sunspot peak, with Morse testing now eliminated, to boot! Maybe some of this will begin to sink in at A.R.R.L. headquarters but by then I fear it will be too late."

Well, I've been through several sunspot cycles since I've been a ham, and activity goes up and down each time.

KA3TGV: "I've stayed away from League-bashing until late in my editorial comment, but they deserve special consideration. I can only conclude the executive leadership of this non-profit organization is clueless when it comes to amateur radio matters."

What should they do differently?

KA3TGV: "For decades A.R.R.L. pushed c.w. to the exclusion of all else."

Which decades?

Looking at the 1950s, ARRL seems to have been pushing SSB to the exclusion of all else. In the '60s and '70s they pushed RTTY, SSTV, VHF, FM/repeaters, satellites, and much more.

Just look at the books: "The Mobile Manual for Radio Amateurs"..."Single Sideband For The Radio Amateur"..."The Radio Amateur's VHF Manual"...."FM and Repeaters for the Radio Amateur"....

Look at the ARRL contests - how many are CW-only, without a voice equivalent?

KA3TGV: "The League was slow to embrace f.m. and they refuse to acknowledge a.m. operation has seen a slow yet steady growth over the past 30 years."

Slow to embrace FM? Look at the QSTs of the 1970s.

What would you have them do about AM?

KA3TGV: "Now, A.R.R.L. is ready to kick c.w. and all analog modes of amateur operation to the curb in their pursuit of an all-digital Amateur Radio Service."

How?

KA3TGV: "A.R.R.L. lacks the testicular fortitude to explain clearly to the F.C.C. and we among the lowly masses just what the intent is behind the series of recent Trojan Horse petitions they have made to the F.C.C. "

Do you mean the "regulation by bandwidth" petition? That's off the table.

KA3TGV: "It is clear A.R.R.L. wants to install itself at the head of the amateur radio table. They want to run roughshod over the Amateur Radio Service spectrum with their amateur radio r.f. servers, presumably to sell "memberships" to the many hams challenged by clauses, covenants, and restrictions. They even have a funny name for this- "Hinternet", I believe it is called!"

How will the use of digital modes push other modes off the air?

What would you have ARRL do - say "no digital modes"?

I agree that robot stations should not be allowed to roam everywhere in the bands. But neither should they be outlawed.

Recently, FCC widened the 'phone parts of several bands, and narrowed the CW/data parts. This was driven in part by the ARRL "refarming" petition of a few years ago.

What would you have ARRL do, if you were calling the shots? Push AM over SSB?

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by W8NES on November 18, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Nice Article Dan;
CW is my favorite mode as well, but I like it all...SSTV..PSK...SSB...2 meter FM....weather fax...so many frequencies so little time !

73 and enjoy the Hobby !
 
RE: Fencing Lessons?  
by N2EY on November 19, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY wrote: "Read the FCC Report and Order to 90-55 and you'll see what really happened. Do you need a link?"

AF6AY replied: "Thank you ever so much but I've had a copy of FCC 90-55 for quite a while."

Well, Len, it appears you either haven't read it or don't understand it. Probably both.

AF6AY: "That issue was settled 16 years ago, but you can't let go of anything that displeases you, can you? :-)"

You brought it up, Len, not me. I'm just correcting your mistakes.

Here, I'll refresh your memory:

A few days ago, I wrote: "1991: Technician class loses its code test"

AF6AY replied: "Quoting the N2EY macro: 'That's plain and simple wrong!' :-)

The NEW (of 1991) Technician class NEVER HAD A CODE TEST TO 'LOSE.' The already-licensed Technician class licensees were renamed 'Technician Plus' and the code test was KEPT for them."

If you're going to talk about history, be accurate.

You seem to think that the no-code-test version of Technician started from zero in mid-February 1991, and that all then-existing Technicians were simultaneously reclassified as Technician Plus then.

But that's not what happened at all. For a considerable time, FCC lumped both code-tested and non-code-tested Technicians into a single license class.

Here's the exact wording from 90-55, the Report and Order that caused Technician to lose its code test back in 1991 (the "we" and "our" in the following is FCC talking about itself):

"21. Discussion - The addition of a sixth class of license to an already intricate license structure is neither desirable nor achievable without unacceptable effects upon our workload. Even if there were no increase in the number of new licensees, adding a sixth license class would result in an increased demand for license application processing: most newcomers to the amateur service initially obtain the lowest class of license and those who subsequently advance to the higher license classes usually do so one class at a time.

22. The disadvantages of a sixth license class are further compounded by the nature of our computer-aided application processing system. On further investigation, we have determined that our present computer system will not support six classes of license without new and significant expenditures of resources. The additional work to modify the system to have the capability of supporting the processing for a sixth class of license."

IOW, FCC didn't want/wouldn't do the added work of a new license class and their 1991 computer system couldn't handle it anyway. So the Technician Plus was not created in Feb 1991.

FCC goes on to say:

"39. In summary, we have decided to provide a codeless class of operator license by eliminating the telegraphy requirement for the Technician Class."

Which they did, just as I previously wrote.

"1991: Technician class loses its code test"

is exactly what happened. Technician Plus as a distinct license class came along a few years later, *not* in 1991.

AF6AY: "BTW, FCC 90-55 has nothing to do with BPL, your pet-for-the-moment misdirection."

Not a misdirection on my part, Len. You're trying to misdirect away from the fact that you don't really know what happened to the license classes back in 1991.
Your conclusions about numbers and growth are based on a false premise, which invalidates your conclusion when exposed.

It's clear you don't/can't/won't admit to your mistake on this, Len. But the facts speak for themselves.

AF6AY: "Are you seguing into another mighty tirade about the PAST? :-)"

You brought it up, Len, not me. I'm just the clear-eyed observer pointing out that the plain and simple facts.

I suggest you read 90-55 and see what *really* happened back then.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE dead horses.  
by WA2JJH on November 19, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I am Pegasus, the flying and talking horse.
I think I am dead. How about you guys have this debate on the air.

I want to hear AE6XX'S poor operating practices on air.

AFXXX is Col. Green. Name that 1968 Star Trek episode!
 
RE: CW and the Macro City  
by K6LHA on November 19, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY tried to counter in a posting on 18 Nov 07:

"KA3TGV wrotes: "Ham radio has been in decline for decades for a number of reasons. Postwar prosperity and the rise of the electronics industry brought commercial television to the masses and the advent of t.v.i. These factors fueled the trend away from building receivers and later transmitters.""

[he 'wrotes' ? :-) ]
.........................
N2EY: "They weren't the only factors. After WW2, kits and surplus were easier, faster and usually less expensive routes to putting a station on the air than homebrewing from new parts."

You were there? :-) You were born around 1953-1954. The WWII surplus availability in stores had already been severely depleted then. Tell us when Heath came out with the first AMATEUR radio kits. Did you build one? :-)
...........................
KA3TGV: "In the late 1950's the 11 meter Novice Band was reassigned as a Class D Citizen's Band."

N2EY: "No, it wasn't. Novices had access to 11 meters only from 1951 to 1954. 11 meters was reassigned to cb in 1958."

Jimmy, 1958 *IS* 'the late 1950s.' :-) I think the pick you use for nits got broke...

Tsk, the '11m ham band' was ELIMINATED, Jimmy. Class C and D CB took its place. But, you were only 4 or 5 years old then, probably studying for your ham ticket, and didn't pay attention to anything beyond ham bands.
.........................
KA3TGV: "In the 1960's commercially built amateur s.s.b. transceivers proved popular and were difficult if not impossible to duplicate economically by the amateur homebrewer. This evolved to hybrid circuitry, followed by the first all solid-state ham rigs. As the technology evolved to ever larger integrated circuits and surface mount technology, there were virtually no homebrewers of amateur transceivers left."

N2EY: "Blame Art Collins."

Collins Radio made the ONLY amateur SSB transmitters and receivers in the 1960s? :-) I don't think so.
............................
N2EY: "But there are a few homebrewers left: http://hometown.aol.com/n2ey/myhomepage/"

Tsk. You built your selected-parts-from-dumpsters rig in the 1970s. Your Elecraft K2 is either a KIT or a ready-made (we still haven't found out if your K2 was in kit form or not). Building from a KIT isn't quite what 'homebrewing' defines...but you will quibble about that until hell freezes over. :-)

N2EY: "http://www.arrl.org/qex/2007/11/drent.pdf"

Cornell Drentea has a very nice transceiver. But, from appearance and from his long Professional experience, the description and pictures all but carry the unspoken label of PRE-PRODUCTION PROTOTYPE.

Anyone who wants to get some capital together to produce anything is going to need as much publicity as possible. Getting published in QEX or QST or any other magazine is a rather standard step in doing that. Such isn't rare, either. Doesn't take much to go back through the last year's issues to see lots of such publicity-gathering articles. Of course the readers of QEX are PAYING to see that disguised advertising stuff so it is an economical way for a future producer of things to get it done.
................
N2EY: "There are also kits: http://www.elecraft.com"

Elecraft is a CALIFORNIA company. I live in California. How can you possibly boost such a faraway company close to one of your nit-picking targets? :-)

Try DZKits and their Sienna super-transceiver. Small outfit, can't afford to buy ads in QST much, so it doesn't get any spotlight there. Do a search for Sienna yourself. A long-time amateur heads it up, an amateur who ALSO has many years of experience as a top-notch Professional.
................
KA3TGV: "When C.B. reached a critical size in the mid-70's is when our problems began. Quite a few of them migrated to the Amateur Radio Service, most of them legitimately, but a sizeable chunk paid someone else to take their test(s). This had also been a problem before the C.B. migration began."

N2EY: "Do you have *any* solid evidence to back up this accusation?"

Are you a gardener when not working for Consolidated Rail Corporation? You are very, very busy with words about LAWN ORDER. :-)

Are you a CB lover, Jimmy? You sure sound like one.
.....................
KA3TGV: "Some of these folks brought their C.B. operating practices with them to the amateur bands, and they are prevalent today on any popular amateur band."

N2EY: "I don't hear "cb operating practices" on CW, though."

Tsk. Class D CB was never allowed to use 'cw' Jimmy. Class C CB might have since it was for remote radio control of models. Class C CB is interleaved with Class D on channel spacing. Now each of those is called Citizens Band Radio SERVICE or Remote Control Radio SERVICE under Part 95, Title 47 C.F.R.

Ya got yer ears on, guud buddy? :-)

Tell us why CB operating practices HAD to be like amateur operating practices, Jimmy.
.....................
KA3TGV: "About the time the United States of America decided to go out of business (1981), the F.C.C. declared they weren't going to have all that much to do with the Amateur Radio Service anymore.

N2EY: "Enabling legislation was signed into law to allow radio amateurs examine radio amateurs and prospective hams for their license (upgrade), an inherent conflict of interest if ever there were."

N2EY: "The VE system started in 1983. But hams had been volunteer examiners since at least the 1930s. Routine Novice and Technician license tests were done by volunteer examiners from 1954 onward, and the old Class C/Conditional goes back to the 1930s."

You might cite the EXACT percentages of those who tested at FCC Field Offices versus those who got ONLY the Novice, 'technician', and Conditional class licenses. You might be surprised at the difference.
I'm surprised you didn't since you look for all the nits to pick and then manufacture some nits that weren't there to pick. :-)
......................
N2EY: "So it hams can't be trusted to give other hams the exams, the problem goes back a very long time."

WHAT problem? :-) Are you saying the ARRL VEC 'can't be trusted?!?' Why are you accusing the ARRL of FRAUD? Shame, shame on you! :-)
.....................
KA3TGV: "Divide and conquer is as successful a strategy now as it has been since the beginning of mankind. I'm referring to disastrous rulemaking from the F.C.C. in the form of the enhanced Novice (1986) and no code Technician (1991). This gave rise to factions; check out what our Founding Fathers had to
say about factions."

N2EY: "Were there no factions in amateur radio before those changes?"

Bravo, Jimmy! After a decade, you FINALLY acknowledged reality! There is hope in the world yet.
.....................
KA3TGV: "The no code Technician license, in particular, created an underclass of amateur radio operators and created further division among existing licensees."

N2EY: "How?"

Tsk, tsk. High-code-rate tested radio amateurs have been strutting and preening over their 'superiority' in amateur radio ever since the Extra code-test-rate was higher than other classes. :-)
...................
KA3TGV: "I've stayed away from League-bashing until late in my editorial comment, but they deserve special consideration. I can only conclude the executive leadership of this non-profit organization is clueless when it comes to amateur radio matters."

N2EY: "What should they do differently?"

For one thing they could put a freeze on salaries ('compensation' in the IRS forms, heh heh). In their 2003 taxable year form they had 28 paid staff members get a total of $1,619,534 in 'compensation', benefis, and expense accounts. We do NOT know how many work at the ARRL who make under $50K/year. In addition, the Officers of the ARRL in 2003 (Sumner, McCobb, Shelley, Wilson, Hobart) were paid a total of $588,333.77. K1ZZ had an expense account of $7,829.80 that year in addition to $137,558.63 in yearly compensation. For those 33 staff and officers, plus $172,214 in legal billings, that was a cash outflow of $2,380,081 PLUS. Not exactly 'volunteer' stuff, is it? :-)
....................
KA3TGV: "For decades A.R.R.L. pushed c.w. to the exclusion of all else."

N2EY: "Which decades?"

ALL of them since 1914, Jimmy. All of them. No question about it. Ever since H. P. Maxim was the first president on-off keying CW was *THE* mode that ALL should use. Period. Ain't no valid arguments opposite that.
.....................
N2EY: "Looking at the 1950s, ARRL seems to have been pushing SSB to the exclusion of all else. In the '60s and '70s they pushed RTTY, SSTV, VHF, FM/repeaters, satellites, and much more."

But, Jimmy, YOU never did any SSB, RTTY, SSTV, VHF, and things like that, did you? :-)

Now don't pull out your macro remark of 'you would be surprised at what I did, Len.' I'm not surprised, Jimmy. It sticks out all over that you are just a morseman who lives in the cw part of 40m. :-)
....................
N2EY: "Just look at the books: "The Mobile Manual for Radio Amateurs"..."Single Sideband For The Radio Amateur"..."The Radio Amateur's VHF Manual"...."FM and Repeaters for the Radio Amateur"...."

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, PUBLISHING is what enables the ARRL to offer all those services, pay all that staff, provide utilities for their buildings, electricity for W1AW, and the remodeling of the office building so that they can get MORE money through all those memorial bricks! Now that ain't a bad way to exist but
for the religious Believers in the League to run around saying they are 'all-volunteer' is a bunch of bullshit.

The PUBLISHING group will push ANYTHING that might SELL, even pushes FICTION, Jimmy. That's not an 'accusation,' just FACT. :-)
.....................
N2EY: "Look at the ARRL contests - how many are CW-only, without a voice equivalent?"

Why is 'cw' given such a spotlight and always mentioned first, Jimmy? :-)
.....................
KA3TGV: "The League was slow to embrace f.m. and they refuse to acknowledge a.m. operation has seen a slow yet steady growth over the past 30 years."

N2EY: "Slow to embrace FM? Look at the QSTs of the 1970s."

Yes, Jimmy, SLOW TO EMBRACE VHF, UHF, and any band above UHF except as a novelty item or some gehenna for non-believers in 'The Bands' at HF and below. They still can't bear to give VHF and up any credit for communications and whatever mention is rather restricted to 'The World Above 50 MHz' as if that were never-never land. :-(

Old QST articles DID feature NBFM in various forms on HF. Not VHF, Jimmy, not on UHF. Are there any NBFM users on the USA airwaves today? Hmmm?
.................
KA3TGV: "A.R.R.L. lacks the testicular fortitude to explain clearly to the F.C.C. and we among the lowly masses just what the intent is behind the series of recent Trojan Horse petitions they have made to the F.C.C. "

N2EY: "Do you mean the "regulation by bandwidth" petition? That's off the table."

It should be. The League crapped all over the table when they brought it up. Useless bit of nonsense to sneak in as a different kind of bandplan. Only some League worshippers and Believers liked it, a very
small minority.
....................
KA3TGV: "It is clear A.R.R.L. wants to install itself at the head of the amateur radio table. They want to run roughshod over the Amateur Radio Service spectrum with their amateur radio r.f. servers, presumably to sell "memberships" to the many hams challenged by clauses, covenants, and restrictions. They even have a funny name for this- "Hinternet", I believe it is called!"

N2EY: "How will the use of digital modes push other modes off the air? What would you have ARRL do - say "no digital modes"?"

Jimmy, since the beginning (in 1914) the ARRL has competed to be THE national organization for amateur radio among MANY such organizations. That is history. It may not be what you get from the League and they would not really tell EVERYTHING of times back then. The ARRL won. Long before you were conceived, probably before your biological parents were conceived. PUBLISHING made it for them, gave them the profits on which to build and eventually have that over-mentioned diamond terrace with all its bricks.

Jimmy, you've said yourself that 'cw' is a DIGITAL mode. You don't use any other mode but 'cw,' do you?
Have you changed to sado-masochism lately...all that whipping of DIGITAL modes?

[Jimmy pulls out his 'outraged' macro - "I never said that! Prove I said that! Show examples!" :-) ]
.........................
N2EY: "I agree that robot stations should not be allowed to roam everywhere in the bands. But neither should they be outlawed.:

Why do you care, Jimmy. All you do is play radiotelegrapher. Star-D isn't for 'cw.' Those Jetson-like robot stations aren't for 'cw.' You don't even drink ALE on HF...:-)
..............................
N2EY: "Recently, FCC widened the 'phone parts of several bands, and narrowed the CW/data parts. This was driven in part by the ARRL "refarming" petition of a few years ago."

By golly, you ARE an acolyte worshipping at the alter of the Church of St.Hiram, aren't you? There's no end of your singing praised to the almighties that live in Newington and playing proselyte at the least opportunity. Woe be unto anyone who bars your (self) rightous path... :-)

AF6AY
 
RE: Fencing Lessons?  
by K6LHA on November 19, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY replied: "Thank you ever so much but I've had a copy of FCC 90-55 for quite a while."

N2EY talked back with the usual arrogant sneer: "Well, Len, it appears you either haven't read it or don't understand it. Probably both."

Tsk, one can never satisfy the emotional hunger of the self-righteous who perceive their nobility has been wronged! :-)

AF6AY: "That issue was settled 16 years ago, but you can't let go of anything that displeases you, can you? :-)"

N2EY snarled in return: "You brought it up, Len, not me. I'm just correcting your mistakes."

Tsk, Jimmy he think like he always in court of law. :-)

'Jimmy crack corn and he don't care...' :-)

Jimmy, before you pop the cork on that corn jug, YOU wrote about 1991 and the Technician class before I did!

N2EY stamps his feet and shouts: "You're trying to misdirect away from the fact that you don't really know what happened to the license classes back in 1991."

If you think so, Jimmy. :-) You are always 'right' and anyone opposing you is always 'wrong.' :-) You won't accept any other situation. :-) What happened to everyone in 1991 is 16 years ago. <shrug>

N2EY: "Your conclusions about numbers and growth are based on a false premise, which invalidates your conclusion when exposed."

The FCC database of amateur radio licenses is a 'false premise?' Tsk, the ARRL bases its FCC license breakdowns by class and states on that 'false premise!'. According to your 'logic' the ARRL is guilty of FALSE PREMISES! [Horrors! :-) ]

Riiiiight...everyone is 'wrong' who disagrees with you! :-)

N2EY with usual looking-down-his-nose arrogance sneers: "It's clear you don't/can't/won't admit to your mistake on this, Len. But the facts speak for themselves."

Hey, no strain, no sweat to me, Jimmy. This isn't any United States Court of Appeals and you haven't been admitted to any Bar. Neither is it a General Election and you are no Hillary Clinton...but your Nun of the Above costume in nicely tailored...too bad your knuckle-spanking ruler keep breaking, though. :-)

This particular article forum subject started out by someone looking at the FUTURE of amateur radio and his personal observations of North American societal implications on that FUTURE. It isn't about some babbling over linguistic arrangements on legal word-use on 16-year-old documents. You want to make it so just the same. :-) That observation never fails. It's as good as the sun coming up tomorrow, Annie. You are more than predictable. :-)

N2EY haughtily and with sneering disdain: "... I'm just the clear-eyed observer pointing out that the plain and simple facts."

Tsk. I'd suggest you throw aside all your finely-toned arrogance for starters. Not that you would, but I'm the eternal optimist. :-) Now, if this forum were REALLY a Court of Law - instead of a place where all can bounce OPINIONS around, then I would be VERRRRY careful about taking the EXACT legal language and debating that. But, this is NOT a debate over legal documents. It is a place for OPINIONS. Opinions are just opinions and NOT 'facts.' They are PERSONAL OPINIONS. If someone's personal opinions are contrary to your noble, self-righteous opinions, than it is just contrary...those someones aren't 'wrong'. Really. No matter how high a platform you think you have above the ordinary people.

OPINIONS often take the GIST of old, old decision documents made by law-chartered authorities. You don't like a lot of others' opinions, so you discard the gist of what happened and concentrate on MINUTIAE of legal language and harrange others for 'failing to see your "clear-eyed" observations." [up your astigmatism say I :-) ]

REAL clear-eyed observers can easily see that the no-code-test Technician class USA amateur radio licensee totals are by far the largest NOW...they've been the tops in numbers (active or all) for several years. Those grew from NOTHING in a mere 16 years. But, some emotional-optical disturbance makes your observation eyes UNclear and you can't understand the implications of that. You rationalize all sorts of other things from hell to breakfast on why they are 'failures' or 'wrong' or any other negativism about them you can conjure up. That is my opinion, and it is probably shared with tens of thousands of 'lesser' class licenses that your opinion classifies you as a pure and simple Morse Code Bigot. You've always been that way for 10+ years.

BIGOTS about any belief system are generally inflexible, cannot change, indeed refuse to change. Human history is rife with examples since language was invented to record history. Every single BIGOT will claim their self-righteous opinion is the ONLY one that is 'right.' When CHANGE happens in society, such as it did in USA amateur radio when the beloved, noble code test was eliminated, most of the louder old-timers declared it a sacrilege, heresy of the highest order, a damnation unto the God of Code! Why there was 'always' a code test for hams - and there should 'always be one' they cried en masse. They 'had to work real hard to master their skill' was the common cry and they wanted to FORCE untold newcomers to do the same as THEY did! Horrors, it really did happen, the code tests were tossed in the dumpster! The Living Museum of the Morse Airwaves were without emotional sustenance and lost their bragging rights and self-righteous pomposity of 'being better than others,' especially the 'lesser' classes! The sky DID fall for those chicken littles. TS.

All you Morse Bigots in here have HAD the chance to oppose the FCC's code-test decision in lawful, accepted commentary made possible by our democratic-principled government. Many did but nearly all used all the old, trite, cliche'-ridden phrases that were around for a half century. You Morse Bigots HAD your chance. You collectively blew it. Try as you might with all the noblest, trite rationalizations, you couldn't make YOUR case. You all made 'excuses' about that being so 'wrong' that you've only proved yourself for what you were...Morse Bigots. <shrug>

I have nothing aginst the USE of on-off-keying CW modes. Those who like it have ample opportunity to choose the OPTION given to you to USE it. If you like it personally, enjoy! What I've been opposed to is the usual self-righteous reason that, because YOU all did that code test, it MUST be applied to any new applicant to be 'worthy' of sharing your righteous occumpancy of bands below 30 MHz. None of you bigots had some God-given 'right' to tell others what to do, yet you all persist in doing so. Sorry, you aren't the LAW. The best you can do is to Peer Pressure to subjugate others. You can gang together and try to FORCE others off this forum. Many already have tried that with me. Problem is, it doesn't work as easily as you thought...all it does is to inflame others and reinforce your Morse Bigotry. It's just "Boys in da 'Hood" attitude hardly different than street gangs...but you've got all those Federal Certificates to prove you are good and righteous. Tsk. I've got one of those Federal Certificates and it entitles me to ALL the options open to any USA licensee in amateur radio! :-)

N2EY tried the toughie act with: "I suggest you read 90-55 and see what *really* happened back then."

I suggest you roll YOUR copy up and insert it somewhere dark on your person. You could then brag about 'giving at the orifice.' Enjoy.

AF6AY

'Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday..." - anonymous tagline
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by KILO4UUG on November 19, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
1.CW IS A MODE.
2.CW IS NO LONGER A REQUIREMENT
3.WHAT PART OF HOBBY & AMATEUR DO THEY NOT UNDERSTAND !
 
RE: Fencing Lessons?  
by NI0C on November 19, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY boasted: "I've got one of those Federal Certificates and it entitles me to ALL the options open to any USA licensee in amateur radio!"

So which of ALL these options open to you are you actually using? Or, did you acquire a license and callsign merely to hold forth in these increasingly worthless forums?

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by URBANGORILLA on November 19, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Look what the cat just dragged in. I haven't seen anything from UUG in a long time. All it takes is a thread about CW and all the psychotic code-haters crawl out of the woodwork. Whats-a-matta UUG? Did the webmaster pull your account that you had to start a new one?

All of us know that CW is a mode and that the testing requirement is gone. As usual, you have nothing useful to contribute. Do any of you code-haters ever have anything useful to contribute? All I see from any of your kind is hatred and divisiveness. Crawl back into your hole. We have our hands full with your cousin Lenny AF6AY.

UG
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by RADIO123US on November 19, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
UG, it seems strange to me that the anti-code bigots find the need to show up in every pro-code thread here...I only can come up the 2 explainations for this...

1. They've created such a bad online anti ham radio reputation, that no one will talk to them on the air, so they show back up on these threads...

2. They think they need to prove to the world that they actually deserve the license that they did NOT EARN...

K4UUG, let me put this in plain SIMPLE english for you...It's Over !!! you don't have to defend LAZINESS anymore...LAZINESS WON !!!...the code test isn't coming back....I hope that eases your mind.....now you can let the folks that enjoy talking positively about CW enjoy doing that...

 
RE: Fencing Lessons?  
by K6LHA on November 19, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
NI0C angrily exclaimed: "So which of ALL these options open to you are you actually using? Or, did you acquire a license and callsign merely to hold forth in these increasingly worthless forums?"

Oh! We are all ACCOUNTABLE to your royal presence, El Jefe? :-)

Or should I address you as Herr Kommandant? It is SO difficult to tell nowadays with everyone claiming to be THE Boss! :-)

Well, 'up yours', as the old men's room talk goes. :-) You don't like others wanting to think for themselves? Of curse not, YOU will issue the orders and expect all to obey them! No sweat, chief, we will comply zero percent with your directives. Enjoy.

Oh, if you find that these forums are not to your liking, feel free to leave. No one is forcing you to do anything. Try to remember that no one appointed you god of ham and you can't force us to do as you wish. Bye, Chucky. Er, Your Majesty.

AF6AY


 
RE: Fencing Lessons?  
by NI0C on November 19, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY: I'm not angry-- I'm simply amused-- astonished, frankly, by the pseudo-random (i.e., repetitive) noise generator that you are.

Carry on!
 
RE: Fencing Lessons?  
by RADIO123US on November 19, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY said "Oh, if you find that these forums are not to your liking, feel free to leave. No one is forcing you to do anything. Try to remember that no one appointed you god of ham and you can't force us to do as you wish."

Wow Len, ...the only one here that trying to act like "god of ham" is YOU....the problem is, you are a NEWBIE with ZILCH, ZERO, NADA practical experience, and even less than that in interpersonal skills...PLEASE feel free to leave anytime if these forums are not to your liking....you will NOT be missed....

 
A Poem  
by N2EY on November 19, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Morse Code skill can have all sorts of uses - and consequences.

Perhaps it is advisable to pause a bit before hitting the SEND button....

73 de Jim, N2EY

-----

A Code of Morals

Now Jones had left his new-wed bride to keep his house in order,
And hied away to the Hurrum Hills above the Afghan border,
To sit on a rock with a heliograph; but ere he left he taught
His wife the working of the Code that sets the miles at naught.


And Love had made him very sage, as Nature made her fair;
So Cupid and Apollo linked, per heliograph, the pair.
At dawn, across the Hurrum Hills, he flashed her counsel wise --
At e'en, the dying sunset bore her busband's homilies.


He warned her 'gainst seductive youths in scarlet clad and gold,
As much as 'gainst the blandishments paternal of the old;
But kept his gravest warnings for (hereby the ditty hangs)
That snowy-haired Lothario, Lieutenant-General Bangs.


'Twas General Bangs, with Aide and Staff, who tittupped on the way,
When they beheld a heliograph tempestuously at play.
They thought of Border risings, and of stations sacked and burnt --
So stopped to take the message down -- and this is whay they learnt --


"Dash dot dot, dot, dot dash, dot dash dot" twice. The General swore.
"Was ever General Officer addressed as 'dear' before?
"'My Love,' i' faith! 'My Duck,' Gadzooks! 'My darling popsy-wop!'
"Spirit of great Lord Wolseley, who is on that mountaintop?"

The artless Aide-de-camp was mute; the gilded Staff were still,
As, dumb with pent-up mirth, they booked that message from the hill;
For clear as summer lightning-flare, the husband's warning ran: --
"Don't dance or ride with General Bangs -- a most immoral man."


[At dawn, across the Hurrum Hills, he flashed her counsel wise --
But, howsoever Love be blind, the world at large hath eyes.]
With damnatory dot and dash he heliographed his wife
Some interesting details of the General's private life.


The artless Aide-de-camp was mute, the shining Staff were still,
And red and ever redder grew the General's shaven gill.
And this is what he said at last (his feelings matter not): --
"I think we've tapped a private line. Hi! Threes about there! Trot!"


All honour unto Bangs, for ne'er did Jones thereafter know
By word or act official who read off that helio.
But the tale is on the Frontier, and from Michni to Mooltan
They know the worthy General as "that most immoral man."


--- Rudyard Kipling

 
RE:Back on topic  
by WA2JJH on November 19, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Worked 20M CW today. So glad I worked many sending around 10WPM. THAT IS PROPER and in the spirit of Ham radio.

I was glad to work the NEW CW newbies!
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by URBANGORILLA on November 19, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
RADIO123US, they don't feel the need to prove anything. They have no guilt and no shame. They are convinced that they deserve the license because they are alive and breathing. They come to the CW threads because they hate code, hate anybody that wants to use code and talk about code, and hate everybody who was against dropping the code test. It is their way of thumbing their noses up at us and shoving it in our faces. They are not real hams. They are ham-wanna-bes.

Some of the no-coders will wise up and learn code when they realize that it is a good thing to know. They will find that phone can't always get through. They will also find out that there are many hams that exclusively do code and nothing else, and that they are shutting themselves out from contacting these folks, be they domestic hams or DX. They will realize that the more skills you have in this hobby, the less limited you are and the more fun you will have.

The above hams that I described above are the open-minded ones. The anti-code militant types will never come around. They will just continue to keep the rift going and continue to stoke the flames of division and hatred. You know the ones I am speaking about. UUG is one, Len is another, and you know the rest. As you think about what I am saying, their callsigns sill pop into your head. Heck, they have been on their anti-code soapbox on EHAM long enough.

73
UG
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 19, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Urban&Radio, I think these anti-CW dudes are too busy ranting on INTERNET. If they are on 20M SSB, they are the ones with the IMOD and the HENRY 4K amps.(Oh...set for 1500W out of course!)
 
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by VE7BDO on November 19, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Isn't it wonderful how we can all get along, tho we might have genuine, sincere disagreement and diversity of opinion?

I especially marvel at the spirit of brotherhood extended by our California friend and even more so, the high level of intellectual integrity and emotional balance with which he proffers his arguments.

Truly, I wouldn't have believed it if it hadn't shown up in my inbox with such regularity.

No, I am not 85, 77, 72, 68 or even 60 years of age - not that that is a boast of my youthfulness or a put-down of anyone older than I. Rather, I started messing about with radios at the ripe old age of 10 (trying to build a 4 transistor regen-set - which I did and it worked great!), I was licensed at 14 and took my advanced as soon as I could thereafter. So, I've been on (and off) the air for 37 years now and lots of new stuff has happened during my most recent sabbatical. I am having a blast learning about PSK31, Packet, satellite work etc. Just today, I finally figured out how to hook up my mac (no Intel here) to my FT897D and it's a whole new world!

Get it: a whole new world. Of discovery! It's a hobby. It's technical. It's fun - or it should be and, when there is a civil emergency, it can be critical and save lives.

CW is just another tool at my disposal, albeit one of my favs, and I learned a long time ago, its good to have a complete toolbox.

73, Robert

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 20, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
VE7BDO :Great attitude, and a very balanced way to look at how the state of our hobby should be!

73 Hope to work you on the air. MIKE WA2JJH
 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 20, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
VE7BDO :Great attitude, and a very balanced way to look at how the state of our hobby should be!

73 Hope to work you on the air. MIKE WA2JJH
 
RE: A Poem  
by WA2JJH on November 20, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY, very nice, creative, and timeless poem. I do poetry and standup comedy at open mics. Greenwich Village is a good area for that.

BTW: You are a kicking AE6XX butt in the War of the Words!

73 DE MIKE
 
RE: cha-cha-hanges!  
by WA2JJH on November 20, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Remember on HF, CW IS ALLOWED IN ALL SSB segments.

I remember a time when during bad QSB, the QSO would stay on freq. and use CW. The hams would go back to SSB to finish or rag chew more! When CNDX got better. Talk about a usefull tool!!! CW. Of course all Generals
would maintain a minimum of 10WPM, back then.

Lets just say we were more dedicated back 30 years ago. Even if you have to use a PC to RX&TX CW, try it for better DX. :)
 
RE: Fencing Lessons?  
by N2EY on November 20, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY previously wrote: "The FCC is not infallible, just in charge. That they made a decision you like doesn't mean it was the right decision."

AF6AY wrote: "That includes INCIDENTAL RADIATION that has the POTENTIAL for interfering with existing radio services. Nowhere is it written that ANY source of incidental radiation is ALWAYS an interference source."

The amount/level of incidental radiation has been quantified and published as law and is included in many radio services' Parts in Title 47 C.F.R."

That does not mean the levels are adequate.

N2EY: "It's the Federal *Communications* Commission, Len. They regulate more than radio. Since the internet is by its very nature interstate commerce, there's a lot FCC can do about BPL - if they want."

AF6AY" "...then again you contradict yourself by:"

N2EY: "BPL is not a radio service."

How is that a contradiction? FCC regulates more than radio. Radio interference caused by a non-radio source is subject to FCC enforcement.

AF6AY: "The FCC has been mandated by Congress of the USA to handle Interstate Communications. That's been around since 1934 but was further clarified by the forced breakup of AT&T and then later, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, among the major revisions."

Which includes BPL systems.

AF6AY: "Access BPL does NOT just handle Internet data."

Irrelevant - it's still under FCC jurisdiction.

AF6AY: "The FCC HAS PUBLISHED REGULATIONS ON INCIDENTAL RADIATION IN REGARDS TO ACCESS BPL. They have enforced some of the violations of INCIDENTAL RADIATION that exceeds the published regulations on Access BPL *and* several other electronics."

But not all violations. Briarcliff Manor, by Ambient, has been in violation for *three years* and FCC has only recently taken any action.

AF6AY: "What you are oblivious to (obviously) is that the REST of the radio world is HUGE and the REST of the communications world is HUGE."

So what? That just means we need more regulations and a bigger FCC.

AF6AY: "It is not only huge but also getting to be incredibly COMPLEX. The FCC does not exist to solely serve some needs of radio amateurs."

Nobody says it does, Len.

AF6AY: "It is chartered to serve the entire country."

Of which radio amateurs are a part. More important, the principle of not allowing poorly engineered systems and devices to pollute the radio spectrum is part of FCC's charter as well.

AF6AY: "Some in the USA want to provide data services to others through a system that is NOT 'radio' and essentially one-way most of the time. That these folks are going about it in a technically-deficient (indeed 'head up their ass' thinking) way, using 'wires' that were never, ever designed to handle huge bandwidths (beyond 60 Hz) and radiating RF from hell to breakfast is not the LEGAL point."

Yes, it is, Len.

One of the purposes of government regulation is to prevent things like poorly-engineered systems from being foisted upon the public. Particularly when there are better alternatives.

Another is to prevent avoidable pollution of natural resources - like the radio spectrum.

btw - those systems which, in your words,

"are going about it in a technically-deficient (indeed 'head up their ass' thinking) way, using 'wires' that were never, ever designed to handle huge bandwidths (beyond 60 Hz) and radiating RF from hell to breakfast"

were all conceived, designed, manufactured and implemented by PROFESSIONALS, weren't they?

Don't those PROFESSIONALS have some sort of PROFESSIONAL obligations about poorly designed systems?

AF6AY: "It has to be PROVEN in a court of law 'beyond a shadow of a doubt.'"

Really? What about "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Isn't this about civil law, not criminal law?

AF6AY: "That PROOF is what the FCC started to do with its published levels of incidental radiation. On most everything that can possibly radiate RF, including Access BPL.

In the FCC's REQUESTED Commentary on BPL, they asked for METHODS to quantify or at least standardize the TEST METHODS to PROVIDE the proof."

So it's up to us *amateurs* to come up with the methods and regulations, huh? To oppose the PROFESSIONALS who lobbied for higher incidental radiation limits?

Isn't that what ARRL and others have done?

It seems to me that FCC should be coming up with those methods. It's *their* job.

AF6AY: "The FCC is very legally oriented, as it should be for any regulatory agency. They are VERY aware of the legal system and how arguments on BOTH SIDES have gone and can go. The average radio amateur or even radio hobbyist (sans license) has NO real experience in law and probably hasn't even served on a jury (a civic responsibility not requiring any radio license or in-depth knowledge of electronics). So here you are, being judge, jury, and executioner making little more than an emotional appeal to a court on a matter of your radio hobby time is being interfered with by nasty capitalistic data providers (who don't realize your collective 'rights' to play radio professional are 'sacrosanct'). Generally the courts would toss you out on such an attitude, along with your 'law books' published by the League. YOU HAVE TO *PROVE* YOUR POINT *LEGALLY* IN ORDER TO WIN. Sheer emotion doesn't cut it. Self-righteousness doesn't cut it."

Gee, Len, you sure sound like *you* want to be judge, jury and executioner....

Or maybe you're just angry about losing that zoning ordinance case some years back. The one where a developer wanted to change the zoning in your neighborhood, but you didn't want it changed from what it was when you bought your house 40-odd years ago.

I recall your attitude was that the zoning for properties near your house must never be allowed to change without your approval, regardless of what the owners of the property want, nor what prospective buyers of the houses want.

But you lost that one.

It was interesting to note how resistant to change you were about that, yet you insist that radio amateurs accept change constantly.

Shall I post some links to that discussion?

....................
N2EY: "FCC has the power to stop sources of interference to licensed radio services. For example, FCC has acted to get electric utilities to solve electrical noise problems caused by power lines, even though FCC has no jurisdiction of electric power utilities as such."

AF6AY: "Electric power distribution lines are not radio services nor were they ever designed to carry BPL."

The point is, FCC has the power to force electric utilities to fix RF noise problems even though they are not radio services. Even if it costs the utility serious money just so a radio amateur can have a lower noise level, the utility can be made to do things like replacing arcing insulators.

AF6AY: "Radio amateurs want to BAN BPL on largely emotional, self-righteous grounds."

No, they don't.

They want interference problems solved. In the case of poorly engineered systems, that may mean shutting the systems down. Even if they were built by PROFESSIONALS.

AF6AY : "Sorry, the courts need more than that...it takes hard work and some professional-standard metrology methods to PROVE the interference levels...plus some legal digging to PROVE that radio amateurs have a 'right' to play with their radios...plus the ability to counter OTHER citizens on ALL those areas IN COURT. Remember, that those OTHERS also have professional-standard metrology methods and attornies who are versed in law and are citizens just like radio amateurs."

Why did the professionals design and implement such poor systems in the first place?


AF6AY: "The trial BPL systems are a technical monstrosity that will prove itself unfit both technically and monetarily."

Yet that monstrosity was conceived, designed and implemented by PROFESSIONALS.

AF6AY: "The corporate structures behind that monstrosity ALSO have the legal and technical smarts to do their thing in the courts IF and only IF they wanted to. Court battles take time and money and the BPL has a harder battle NOW in competing in the data-provider marketplace with other
data-providers like wideband cable, Wi-Fi, et al. Just remember that IT WORKS BOTH WAYS IN COURT."

I don't think so. If FCC were doing its job, this wouldn't be a problem.

N2EY: "Second, there are many users of the HF radio spectrum besides radio amateurs. BPL could affect all of them."

AF6AY: "Oh? You 'know' this from playing ham games on 40m CW? :-)"

I've done a lot more radio than 40 CW, Len.

Have *you* done any 40 CW operating, Len?

AF6AY: "I've BEEN in those other parts of the HF radio spectrum OTHER than amateur bands, recently and long ago. The FCC has the task of regulating ALL USA civil 'radio,' not just the HF ham playground."

But you're a newbie in amateur radio. My guess is that you've never even been on the 40 meter amateur band using your own station and license, let alone 40 CW.

In fact, I'm pretty sure you've never used your own station and license on any HF or MF amateur band.

The amateur bands are more than "playgrounds", Len. And even if they were, playgrounds deserve protection from unnecessary pollution.

N2EY: "Third, if BPL is allowed to set a precedent that it's OK to implement poorly-engineered systems, no part of the radio spectrum is safe."

AF6Ay: "That is one of the stupidest conspiracy-theory germs seen in a long time. :-)"

Why? Isn't precedent a big part of legal proceedings? If a precedent is set by BPL that it's OK to pollute the RF spectrum even though better technologies exist, why can't other spectrum-polluters do the same thing?

AF6AY: "You are implying that USA amateur radio - which allows home construction of radio transmitters - are all well-engineered systems?"

Do you know any that are not?

AF6AY: "You have professional-standard metrology equipment to 'prove' that your amateur transmitters stay within technical requirements at all times? I don't think so."

Don't need them. Just have to keep within the regulations *and* be responsible about not causing interference.

AF6AY: "Very few radio amateurs have that. Most rely on well-engineered READY-BUILT transmitters and just hope that they remain so."

Not really. If interference is reported, they have to fix the problem *if* it caused by a defective transmitter.

AF6AY: "If you want to enforce the ban against 'proorly-engineered systems,' then you are striking for all radio amateurs being required to use ONLY type-accepted equipment."

Nope. Not at all.

Existing regulations cover things very well already.

The whole point of the BPL discussion is to point out that FCC is not infallible and does not always make the right choices.

Like when they chose to allow 27 MHz cb....

N2EY: "Fourth, radio amateurs *DO* have the right, where granted by treaty, to be the sole users of their
bands. For example, 7000-7100 kHz is a worldwide exclusive amateur allocation."

AF6AY: "Incorrect."

Look it up, Len. 7000-7100 kHz is worldwide amateur radio according to ITU treaty.

AF6AY: "The allocations for frequency bands and modes/modulations in the USA are enforced by the FCC, not by some 'treaty.' FCC is the regulatory agency here."

And as a signatory to the treaty, the federal govt. has bound itself to have its agency (FCC) enforce the treaty.

That same treaty is why FCC did not eliminate Morse Code testing back in 2000, btw. It was specifically cited by FCC.

N2EY: "You're saying that the BPL folk have as much right to pollute the HF bands with noise as we hams have to use those bands for communications. That's just bunk."

AF6AY: "Incorrect, bunky. :-) BPL has every right to communicate data on power lines."

But not to pollute the HF bands with noise.

That's the long and short of it.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: Fencing Lessons?  
by URBANGORILLA on November 20, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY: "The allocations for frequency bands and modes/modulations in the USA are enforced by the FCC, not by some 'treaty.' FCC is the regulatory agency here."

Boy, is this guy dumb! Don't you know anything about international treaties, Lenny? The United States is bound by numerous international treaties. The one regarding international radio spectrum is only one. We are bound by nuclear arms treaties, environmental treaties, non-aggression treaties, defense treaties (NATO, UN) just to name a few. By treaty, the United States cannot invade Cuba. We gave Cuba this guarantee in return for the Soviets removing their missiles from Cuban Soil to end the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The FCC regulates all civilian use of radio spectrum within US territorial jurisdiction in accordance with international treaty. The earliest that our code requirement could have been removed was July, 2003 when the matter was voted on at the World Radio Conference that year. Prior to July, 2003, every country was bound by international treaty to test for a minimum of 5wpm code proficiency for HF amateur privileges.

If you want to rant, at least get your facts straight.

UG
 
RE: Fencing Lessons?  
by AA9YA on November 20, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
What is it with this newbie diptard.

Every time he posts...it just shows everyone just how stupid he really is.
 
RE: Fencing Lessons?  
by N2EY on November 20, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
URBANGORILLA WROTE: "Prior to July, 2003, every country was bound by international treaty to test for a minimum of 5wpm code proficiency for HF amateur privileges."

Well, not exactly.

No minimum code-test speed was ever specified by the treaty, nor an exact method of testing other than "receive by ear and send by hand". However, it was generally agreed that 5 wpm was the minimum speed that could be considered to be consistent with the treaty requirement. And the "by ear" part to mean that mechanical or electronic encoders/decoders weren't allowed.

AFAIK no country ever used tests slower than 5 wpm. FCC repeatedly stated that, in their interpretation, 5 wpm was the slowest test speed that would meet the treaty.

All history now, of course. As you stated, prior to July 2003 the treaty required code tests for any amateur license giving privileges below 30 MHz. FCC stated in 1990 and 1999 that they could not waive/eliminate the code test because of the treaty.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: Fencing Lessons?  
by WA2JJH on November 20, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<by AA9YA on November 20, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
What is it with this newbie diptard.

Every time he posts...it just shows everyone just how stupid he really is.>>>>>

He is far from stupid. He is a product of todays "EXTRA IN ONE DAY" course's.

If I remember correctly, one had to have the ADVANCED and have 2 years of ham radio experience.

He feels too foolish just to ask a question. Instead he gets his answers in "debate" form from Jim. N2EY

 
RE: Fencing Lessons?  
by WA2JJH on November 20, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<by AA9YA on November 20, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
What is it with this newbie diptard.

Every time he posts...it just shows everyone just how stupid he really is.>>>>>

He is far from stupid. He is a product of todays "EXTRA IN ONE DAY" course's.

If I remember correctly, one had to have the ADVANCED and have 2 years of ham radio experience.

He feels too foolish just to ask a question. Instead he gets his answers in "debate" form from Jim. N2EY

 
RE: PROFESSIONALS?  
by WA2JJH on November 20, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
It was PROFESSIONALS that designed the first color TV's.
As per Planks equation....simply any time you have more than 13KV in a Vacuum tube, XRAYS are produced.
Color TV's now have leaded glass to protect the consumer from a good number of millirads of XRAYS mutating a humans DNA.

Our politio's are Profesionals.
THE CHEAP MORONS THAT CAME UP WITH BPL INTERNET are Professionals too.

The chemical industry is filled with Doctorial engineering degree's.

Need I go on!
 
RE: PROFESSIONALS?  
by WA2JJH on November 20, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<
AF6AY: "You have professional-standard metrology equipment to 'prove' that your amateur transmitters stay within technical requirements at all times? I don't think so." >>>>>>

FCC CERTIFIED AND RUBIDIUM TIME BASE CALIBRATED
RF SERVICE MONITORS. A Rhode-shawrtz Distortion analyser are used too.

Cushman/Wavetek CS-3000B(I have that one. Obsolete for digital RF apps.

IFR-1500 series.

The New Motorola's do EVERYTHING! Emulating Cell and trunking systems.

Most service monitors will test for IMD, spectral purity and emulate any type of low power TX to any mode RX.

They must be calibrated with a rubidium standard time base. I know a dude that makes a fortune. He getz good money just calibrated test gear.
 
Experience Requirements.  
by N2EY on November 20, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
WA2JJH writes: "If I remember correctly, one had to have the ADVANCED and have 2 years of ham radio experience."

Sort of, but not exactly.

From its creation in 1951 until the mid-1970s, the modern Amateur Extra had a requirement of 2 years experience as a radio amateur licensed by the FCC. Time as a Novice or Technician did not count. However, if an amateur with a General license could show that s/he had been a licensed amateur before May, 1917, s/he got a free, no-test upgrade to Extra.

In the mid-1970s, the experience requirement was dropped to one year, then eliminated completely.

---

From its creation in the 1930s until it was closed to new issues at the end of 1952, the Advanced had a requirement of 1 year experience as a radio amateur licensed by the FCC. Time as a Novice or Technician did not count. Other licenses, education, etc., did not count either. When the Advanced was reopened to new issues in 1967, there was no experience requirement.

--

OTOH, the USA has never had a minimum-age requirement for any class of amateur license.

--

There was never a requirement to have an Advanced for some minimum period of time before trying the Extra, but after 1967 you did have to pass the Advanced test before you could try the Extra tests.

--

These experience requirements were only satisfied by holding an amateur license issued by the FCC. Other licenses, education, experience, etc., did not count.

Ancient history now. For more than 30 years it's been possible for a person to go from no amateur license to Extra in one go. However, in the old days (as recently as 2000) that could require passing as many as five written exams and the 20 wpm code all at the same exam session.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: Experience Requirements.  
by WA2JJH on November 20, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<
OTOH, the USA has never had a minimum-age requirement for any class of amateur license>>>>

VERY TRUE. I think there is an 8 year old girl that got her General. There is a 13 year old extra.

Seems our generation, would EARN their 20WPM FCC tested extra by the age of 18.

Guess, will have lots of young extra EXTRA'S to work on CW!!!




 
RE: Experience Requirements.  
by N2EY on November 21, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
WA2JJH writes:

"I think there is an 8 year old girl that got her General. There is a 13 year old extra."

IIRC, the youngest General was six years old when she earned the license, and the youngest Extra was seven years old.

WA2JJH: "Seems our generation, would EARN their 20WPM FCC tested extra by the age of 18."

Well, I got mine at age 16 and that wasn't a record for 1970. I recall reading about a 13 year old Extra back in the late 1960s.

It should be remembered that before the 1970s Extras were pretty rare - less than 3% of US hams were Extras in 1970.

Way back in the late 1940s, a local nine-year-old girl earned her Class B in front of the FCC examiner. That was back when the written exams involved drawing diagrams, writing essays and solving problems with your work shown.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: Experience Requirements.the road less traveled  
by WA2JJH on November 21, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The main point I was trying to make.

1)A Ham became a better ham, because of time to upgrade.

I got my Novice, then Tech by 16. I failed the 13 WPM 3 X. Of course I thought I should be on 20 M phone.
(Those turbulent teen years).

Got my Advanced by 17. I agree, the advanced did separate out the men from the boys.
I remember the Advanced as 100 questions and very similar, but less trouble shooting then the stressing 2nd class phone

It took me 3 years to go from SWL-EXTRA.(A 1st phone to boot. The study material was similar.
The 1st Phone simply put in questions and schematics for BDCST TV. STL's(13 ghz studio to transmitter links), Turn style antenna's, and Video tape head maintenance.

THE BIG PICTURE WAS THE JOURNEY....NOT A GENERAL CLASS HAMS RIGHT TO USE 20 M VOICE(SSB OR AM).

During my ham radio journey, I had to use other Hams stations. A kid of 16 did not have an extra $800 to use 30 years ago. $800 was to buy a Yeasu FT-101E or Kenwood TS-520. We built our own antenna's for a few bux. Then again 10-40 M verticals could be had for $75.
Chuck in one of the first MFJ tuners, weighed in around $60. Your SWR meter/dummy load/coax switch were not in the early MFJ tuners.

So many of use built QRP TX/RX CW only rigs. When QRP
got few contacts, we went to the Clubs station.
A solid 75 W input to the final, and MANY 40/80 XTALS.
The club had a DRAKE 2 NT and a DRAKE R2B. This was the Novice station. A DRAKE C line was for those that just got their General.

The point. Learning from the Hams that had 20+years on us. Like EHAM, some would help you out nicely. Some would yell that we should have known the answer!

One never dared to say the 13 WPM test for Tech to General upgrade was too hard or impossible. Yes, we thought it. We just worked so many CW contacts, code speed would double. I found 10 WPM A-OK.

I would always choke up on being in a federal building, trying to copy error free code at 13 WPM.

A string of random letters and numbers. The examiner smoked stinky cigars. He looked like a J EDGAR HOOVER
clone. He would always go into the enforcement room.
Racks and racks of mil/commercial HF/VHF/UHF/SHF stuff. If Mr "stinky cigar" saw you looking in awe.......he would slam the door shut!

I kept learning from many Elmer hams at the club.
I got yelled at. However when I passed my General, I would yell back. When I got my Extra, some ham buddies threw me a party.(((((THOSE WERE THE DAYS...yells Edith at Archie. Gee, my old La-sal ran great. Those were the days!!!!(SHRILLS EDITH OUT OF TUNE))))))

I just wish some would not diminish the things we worked harder for. We want to teach you and help you.
However, some of ya's...JUST COP-A- TUDE. If you know it all........do not pretend you do. Do not use sophistry and tactics to ask a question. The DEBATE FORMAT(Invented by AEXXX) is not funny NOW! INVENT A NEW SCHTICK!!

YOU NEVER STOP LEARNING EITHER.









 
RE: Experience Requirements.the road less traveled  
by WA2JJH on November 21, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<Oh! We are all ACCOUNTABLE to your royal presence, El Jefe? :-)

Or should I address you as Herr Kommandant? It is SO difficult to tell nowadays with everyone claiming to be THE Boss! :-)

Well, 'up yours', >>>>>

BAH FANGO PRO RHE NATA TO YOU, PERSONA NON GRATA!
GEIT MEA FELOGUE CUM COOH CUP!Muay Ti kumite!

You were the D.F.B.M.F.C.S.S.O.B. that started with your quasi-legalese BULL-WINKLE!!!
 
RE: UN MANNED SATEL  
by WA2JJH on November 21, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<<<<<<AF6Ass: "I've BEEN in those other parts of the HF radio spectrum OTHER than amateur bands, recently and long ago. The FCC has the task of regulating ALL USA civil 'radio,' not just the HF ham playground." >>>>

Are you saying you cut a SMT diode or two, so your Ham Rig TX's from 1.6-30mhz.(like what a RACAL OR HARRIS RF-3200 Does.) .

Free banding is not MARS. Does your special classified "FEDERAL ALL IN ONE TICKET" Allow you to talk on AM BDCST, 27.45-28mhz freebase band, CB with 3 KW, DO WHAT AN A-6 PROWLER will Jam/cm/ccm/cccm/ mode.

ARE YOU SAYING YOU HAVE PLAUSABLE DENYABILITY TO JAM RADIO CUBA AND IRAN TOO!!! WOW....I IS IMPRESSED!!!!

ARE YOU INVOLVED WITH "THE AURORA PROJECT"? WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSIONAL COST ON A HARRIS FALCON-2 OR FALCON-5.

I THINK YOUR "AFTER BURNERS" FLAMED OUT......WILKO.....AFFIRMATIVE-K? EJECT,EJECT,EJECT!!!!

 
RE: CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 21, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
VE7BDO writes: "Industry Canada (our FCC) did modify the requirements in July 2005 re: full privileges below 30mhz as stated."

(making a Morse Code test optional if the prospective ham scored high enough on the written test)

Almost two full years before the USA did...interesting.

VE7BDO: "It's interesting; however, their partial reasoning behind keeping Code as one additional requirement. What IC said in their preamble was:

Prior to analyzing the elements of the RAC proposal, the Department first assessed the validity of the following three factors presented by the RAC as fundamental arguments:

1. There must be an awareness of the impact of this action (i.e. elimination of the Morse code requirements) upon existing reciprocal agreements and other arrangements which permit Canadian radio amateurs to operate in other countries and foreign radio amateurs to operate in Canada.

2. The Morse code examination must continue to be available in Canada for the benefit of radio amateurs who may require such a qualification for operation in another country, and for those who wish to acquire skill in the use of Morse code."

Our FCC seem to have just ignored that issue.

VE7BDO quoting Industry Canada:

"3. Operation in the HF bands requires special knowledge and skills not necessary for most operations in the bands above 30 MHz. This difference should be reflected in the examination arrangements."

I agree 100%!


VE7BDO: "Industry Canada has accepted the validity of these three factors, and consequently, they were taken as the basis from which the specific recommendations were assessed.

From my peon's position here next to the mighty Pacific, it seems they got "it" right, IMHO, of course."

I agree from my position here on the East Coast as well. An ingenious compromise that gave everyone some of what they wanted.

Seems to me that too often the "Not Invented Here" syndrome takes over down here in the lower 48 provinces...as if the USA can't take a lesson from any other country.

Universal Health Care, anyone?

73 es TNX de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: Fencing Lessons?  
by N2EY on November 21, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY: "YOU wrote about 1991 and the Technician class before I did!"

You're missing the point, Len, either on purpose or by mistake.

Let's recap:

I was pointing out that the FCC has been reducing the amateur license test requirements for a couple of decades now. One important example of that was that, in Feb 1991, the Technician class license lost its code test.

You claimed that in Feb 1991 the nocodetest Technician totals started from zero and that all then-existing code-tested Technicians were reclassified as Technician Pluses.

But that's not what happened. The Report and Order to 90-55 proves it. FCC just lumped code-tested and noncodetested Technicians together into one class of license in 1991. It was a few years later, when FCC got a new computer system, that the Technician Plus became a separate license class.

It seems to me that you don't want to admit you were mistaken.

N2EY: "You're trying to misdirect away from the fact that you don't really know what happened to the license classes back in 1991."

Which sure seems to be the case.

AF6AY: "If you think so,... :-) You are always 'right' and anyone opposing you is always 'wrong.' :-) You won't accept any other situation. :-) What happened to everyone in 1991 is 16 years ago. <shrug>"

You're mistaken, Len....

I'm not *always* right, Len, and those opposing me aren't *always* wrong.

But in this case, I've proven that you were mistaken.

N2EY: "Your conclusions about numbers and growth are based on a false premise, which invalidates your conclusion when exposed."

AF6AY: "The FCC database of amateur radio licenses is a 'false premise?'"

No. But you didn't analyze those numbers, Len. You took the totals posted on websites as correct, same as I did.

N2EY: "It's clear you don't/can't/won't admit to your mistake on this, Len. But the facts speak for themselves."

AF6AY: "This particular article forum subject started out by someone looking at the FUTURE of amateur radio and his personal observations of North American societal implications on that FUTURE."

He also looked at the past.

AF6AY: "It isn't about some babbling over linguistic arrangements on legal word-use on 16-year-old documents."

The facts are as I stated, Len, not as you claimed. The documents prove it.

That's not "some babbling".

N2EY: "... I'm just the clear-eyed observer pointing out that the plain and simple facts."

AF6AY: "I'd suggest you throw aside all your finely-toned arrogance for starters. Not that you would, but I'm the eternal optimist. :-) Now, if this forum were REALLY a Court of Law - instead of a place where all can bounce OPINIONS around, then I would be VERRRRY careful about taking the EXACT legal language and debating that. But, this is NOT a debate over legal documents."

Sure it is. And the legal documents prove that you were mistaken.

AF6AY: "It is a place for OPINIONS."

But not just opinions. Facts also have a place here.

And an opinion that isn't fact-based is probably faulty.

AF6AY: "Opinions are just opinions and NOT 'facts.' They are PERSONAL OPINIONS."

I agree 100%. But not all opinions are created equal. An opinion based on a mistake is the equal of one based on facts and sound reasoning.

There are people who hold the opinion that the earth is not a sphere. There are people who hold the opinion that the moon, sun and stars all circle around the earth, which is the center of the universe. Etc. Such opinions, while once popular, are not based on fact and need to be exposed as mistakes.

AF6AY: "If someone's personal opinions are contrary to your noble, self-righteous opinions, than it is just contrary...those someones aren't 'wrong'."

They can be. If their opinion is based on a false statement or faulty logic, then they *are* wrong.

Simple as that.

AF6AY: "Really. No matter how high a platform you think you have above the ordinary people."

It's not about me, Len. It's about truth vs. mistakes. You seem to get your feelings very hurt when someone shows your opinions to be based on mistakes and/or faulty logic. Thus your personal-attack shoot-the-messenger tactics.

One thing I learned from engineering is that reality does not care about anyone's opinion or feelings.

AF6AY: "OPINIONS often take the GIST of old, old decision documents made by law-chartered authorities. You don't like a lot of others' opinions, so you discard the gist of what happened and concentrate on MINUTIAE of legal language and harrange others for 'failing to see your "clear-eyed" observations." [up your astigmatism say I :-) ]"

Nope. I just stated some facts and showed you to be mistaken.

Simple as that.

AF6AY: "REAL clear-eyed observers can easily see that the no-code-test Technician class USA amateur radio licensee totals are by far the largest NOW"

Except they aren't all no-code-test, Len. The Technician class now contains both code-tested and noncodetested amateurs, same as in 1991.

AF6AY: "...they've been the tops in numbers (active or all) for several years."

Nobody disputes that, Len. But their numbers have been declining in recent years.

AF6AY: "Those grew from NOTHING in a mere 16 years."

No, they did not.

AF6AY: "But, some emotional-optical disturbance makes your observation eyes UNclear and you can't understand the implications of that. You rationalize all sorts of other things from hell to breakfast on why they are 'failures' or 'wrong' or any other negativism about them you can conjure up."

I just stated the facts about the Technician class, Len.

AF6AY: "That is my opinion,"

It's based on a mistake. That's a fact.

AF6AY: "and it is probably shared with tens of thousands of 'lesser' class licenses that your opinion classifies you as a pure and simple Morse Code Bigot.
You've always been that way for 10+ years."

Really? Where's your proof, Len? Show us some examples.

I don't think you can.

AF6AY: "BIGOTS about any belief system are generally inflexible, cannot change, indeed refuse to change."

Refusal to change does not make someone a bigot.

As for resistance to change, I recall that some years back a landowner near you wanted a minor zoning change, and you fought back to prevent any change.

You resisted change through the legal system even though the real estate market, construction methods, lifestyles and prices have changed radically since you bought your house. You wanted your neighborhood to remain as it was. Does that make you a bigot?

(All of this real-estate stuff was posted on-line - mostly by AF6AY. Len just doesn't like the analogy.)

You thought that if the zoning were changed, the resulting development would affect your neighborhood in bad ways, so you opposed it. Yet the zoning was changed, the undeveloped land was developed, and the RE values rose.

The majority of hams who bothered to comment to FCC thought that if the Morse Code testing were removed, the resulting development would affect the amateur radio "neighborhood" in bad ways, so they opposed it. Yet the test was eliminated. Perhaps the results will be good, perhaps not. Or perhaps there won't really be much effect at all.

AF6AY: "Human history is rife with examples since language was invented to record history. Every single BIGOT will claim their self-righteous opinion is the ONLY one that is 'right.' When CHANGE happens in society, such as it did in USA amateur radio when the beloved, noble code test was eliminated, most of the louder old-timers declared it a sacrilege, heresy of the highest order, a damnation unto the God of Code!"

Well, that leaves me out. I simply thought it was a bad idea to lower the license test requirements, that's all.

AF6AY: "Why there was 'always' a code test for hams - and there should 'always be one' they cried en masse."

Not me.

AF6AY: "They 'had to work real hard to master their skill' was the common cry and they wanted to FORCE untold newcomers to do the same as THEY did! Horrors, it really did happen, the code tests were tossed in the dumpster! The Living Museum of the Morse Airwaves were without emotional sustenance and lost their bragging rights and self-righteous pomposity of 'being better than others,' especially the 'lesser' classes! The sky DID fall for those chicken littles. TS."

I wasn't one of them, Len.

AF6AY: "All you Morse Bigots in here have HAD the chance to oppose the FCC's code-test decision in lawful, accepted commentary made possible by our democratic-principled government. Many did but nearly all used all the old, trite, cliche'-ridden phrases that were around for a half century. You Morse Bigots HAD your chance. You collectively blew it. Try as you might with all the noblest, trite rationalizations, you couldn't make YOUR case. You all made 'excuses' about that being so 'wrong' that you've only proved yourself for what you were...Morse Bigots. <shrug>"

The reasons I gave for retaining Morse Code testing did not include what you're claiming, Len. I'm not a bigot of any sort.

AF6AY: "I have nothing aginst the USE of on-off-keying CW modes."

Do you mean Morse Code?

If so, your behavior on-line tells a much different story.

Or perhaps what you mean is that it's OK for hams to use Morse Code as long as we don't talk about it, don't promote the mode, don't mention its advantages, etc.

Is it OK with you if I mention the Jay Leno Morse Code demo? (It's on YouTube). Is it OK if I mention that I was one of the CW operators at the local group's Field Day, and that our one CW setup made more points and more QSOs than all the 'phone stations (there were three of them, two HF and one VHF/UHF) combined?

Is it OK if I point out how well Morse Code works with low power and compromise antennas? Or how it's easier to homebrew simple, effective CW equipment?

Is it OK with you that pictures and descriptions of my station are on my website (which can be found by googling my call)? Is it OK that a receiver I homebrewed for $10 back in the 1970s is featured on the HBR website?

AF6AY: "Those who like it have ample opportunity to choose the OPTION given to you to USE it. If you like it personally, enjoy!"

Gee thanks, Len.

I do enjoy Morse Code. Have done so for more than 40 years. I made 365 QSOs in the CW SS a few weekends ago, btw. (My first SS was 1968).

What have *you* done with your amateur license privileges, Len?

AF6AY: "What I've been opposed to is the usual self-righteous reason that, because YOU all did that code test, it MUST be applied to any new applicant to be 'worthy' of sharing your righteous occumpancy of bands below 30 MHz."

That's not a reason I ever gave, Len. There were many other reasons to keep the Morse Code test, but they did not change FCC's opinion. That does not make them invalid reasons - they just didn't convince FCC.

I've moved on. Have you?

AF6AY: "None of you bigots had some God-given 'right' to tell others what to do, yet you all persist in doing so. Sorry, you aren't the LAW. The best you can do is to Peer Pressure to subjugate others."

Well, I'm not a bigot of any kind, so that leaves me out.

However, expressing an opinion of what should and should not be done *is* a right. It's called free speech. I have the right to say what is good and bad for amateur radio.

AF6AY: "You can gang together and try to FORCE others off this forum. Many already have tried that with me. Problem is, it doesn't work as easily as you thought...all it does is to inflame others and reinforce your Morse Bigotry. It's just "Boys in da 'Hood" attitude hardly different than street gangs...but you've got all those Federal Certificates to prove you are good and righteous. Tsk. I've got one of those Federal Certificates and it entitles me to ALL the options open to any USA licensee in amateur radio! :-)"

Well, Len, I've never told anyone online to shut up or go away. You have - for example, where you told a USAF veteran who also served in the State Department to shut up.

IIRC, the exact quote was:

"shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel"

(google tells all)

Now, who's the bigot?

--

The ultimate irony of all this may be playing out all over the world.

With the removal of Morse Code testing have come reports of increased interest in Morse Code, often from young people who see it as an interesting, different way to communicate, which places skill over technology. Organizations like FISTS and SKCC keep growing and growing.

Perhaps the legacy of the end of Morse Code testing will be more Morse Code *use* on the amateur bands. Some of us are working for that to happen.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
Surplus & Homebrew  
by N2EY on November 21, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY: "You were born around 1953-1954. The WWII surplus availability in stores had already been severely depleted then."

Maybe where you were. Not here in Philadelphia - there was still lots of surplus in stores more than 10 years after 1953-54.

Surplus was also easily available by mail order well into the 1970s. Ever hear of Fair Radio Sales? They're still in business, but not much WW2 surplus left.

AF6AY: "Tell us when Heath came out with the first AMATEUR radio kits."

Depends on what you mean by "AMATEUR radio kits"

The AT-1 transmitter and AR-1 receiver date from the early 1950s. They used some surplus parts.

KA3TGV: "In the late 1950's the 11 meter Novice Band was reassigned as a Class D Citizen's Band."

N2EY: "No, it wasn't. Novices had access to 11 meters only from 1951 to 1954. 11 meters was reassigned to cb in 1958."

AF6AY: "1958 *IS* 'the late 1950s.' :-)"

But 11 meters wasn't a "Novice band" after 1954.

N2EY: "But there are a few homebrewers left: http://hometown.aol.com/n2ey/myhomepage/"

AF6AY: "Tsk. You built your selected-parts-from-dumpsters rig in the 1970s."

You seem to have a problem with facts, Len. Here, I'll explain:

I've been homebrewing ham gear for more than 40 years. Built a simple regen receiver at the age of 12 and learned Morse Code with it.

Been homebrewing ever since. Transmitters, receivers, transceivers, antenna tuners, power supplies, test equipment, control systems, shack furniture.....

Also restoring old equipment and building kits.

This receiver *was* built in the 1970s:

http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/jiminfo.doc
http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX1.jpg
http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX2.jpg
http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX3.jpg
http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX4.jpg
http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX5.jpg
http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX6.jpg

There was a matching transmitter, too. Did really good QSK CW on 80, 40 and 20 meters.

This rig:

http://hometown.aol.com/n2ey/myhomepage/

was first built in the early 1990s, and has had some improvements since then.

AF6AY: "Your Elecraft K2 is either a KIT or a ready-made (we still haven't found out if your K2 was in kit form or not)."

I built it from the kit in 2001. You ever build a working HF amateur radio transceiver, Len?

N2EY: "http://www.arrl.org/qex/2007/11/drent.pdf"

AF6AY: "Cornell Drentea has a very nice transceiver."

You mean KW7CD? He also designed the Dentron MLA-2500 amplifier.

AF6AY: "But, from appearance and from his long Professional experience, the description and pictures all but carry the unspoken label of PRE-PRODUCTION PROTOTYPE."

Except it's not. It's homebrew. Read his article, and you'll see it's the latest version of an ongoing project.

AF6AY:"Anyone who wants to get some capital together to produce anything is going to need as much publicity as possible. Getting published in QEX or QST or any other magazine is a rather standard step in doing that. Such isn't rare, either. Doesn't take much to go back through the last year's issues to see lots of such publicity-gathering articles. Of course the readers of QEX are PAYING to see that disguised advertising stuff so it is an economical way for a future producer of things to get it done."

It's homebrew, Len.

"Enabling legislation was signed into law to allow radio amateurs examine radio amateurs and prospective hams for their license (upgrade), an inherent conflict of interest if ever there were."

I did not write those words, Len. KA3TGV did. You misquoted me.

N2EY: "The VE system started in 1983. But hams had been volunteer examiners since at least the 1930s. Routine Novice and Technician license tests were done by volunteer examiners from 1954 onward, and the old Class C/Conditional goes back to the 1930s."

AF6AY: "You might cite the EXACT percentages of those who tested at FCC Field Offices versus those who got ONLY the Novice, 'technician', and Conditional class licenses."

Why would I cite those numbers?

And why do you have 'technician' in quotes?

AF6AY: "You might be surprised at the difference."

Why?

Do you have those numbers? If so, why not post them?

I think you do not have them.

N2EY: "So it hams can't be trusted to give other hams the exams, the problem goes back a very long time."

AF6AY: "WHAT problem? :-)"

Exactly.

AF6AY: "Are you saying the ARRL VEC 'can't be trusted?!?' Why are you accusing the ARRL of FRAUD?"

Not me accusing anybody of fraud. OTOH:

http://tinyurl.com/2k5mb5

KA3TGV: "For decades A.R.R.L. pushed c.w. to the exclusion of all else."

N2EY: "Which decades?"

AF6AY: "ALL of them since 1914,"

How? Show us.

N2EY: "Looking at the 1950s, ARRL seems to have been pushing SSB to the exclusion of all else. In the '60s and '70s they pushed RTTY, SSTV, VHF, FM/repeaters, satellites, and much more."

AF6AY: "YOU never did any SSB, RTTY, SSTV, VHF, and things like that, did you? :-)"

Sure I did. On the amateur bands, too.

N2EY: "Just look at the books: "The Mobile Manual for Radio Amateurs"..."Single Sideband For The Radio Amateur"..."The Radio Amateur's VHF Manual"...."FM and Repeaters for the Radio Amateur"...."

AF6AY: "PUBLISHING is what enables the ARRL to offer all those services, pay all that staff, provide utilities for their buildings, electricity for W1AW, and the remodeling of the office building so that they can get MORE money through all those memorial bricks!"

So how were they pushing CW by publishing all those books on all those other modes?

N2EY: "Look at the ARRL contests - how many are CW-only, without a voice equivalent?"

AF6AY: "Why is 'cw' given such a spotlight and always mentioned first"

Alphabetic order, Len.

N2EY: "Do you mean the "regulation by bandwidth" petition? That's off the table."

AF6AY: "It should be."

Why?

AF6AY: "The League crapped all over the table when they brought it up. Useless bit of nonsense to sneak in as a different kind of bandplan. Only some League worshippers and Believers liked it, a very
small minority."

You mean the folks pushing WinLink and PACTOR 3.

And it wasn't a bandplan, Len. It was a change in regulations. Bandplans are voluntary, regulations aren't.

N2EY: "How will the use of digital modes push other modes off the air? What would you have ARRL do - say "no digital modes"?"

AF6AY: "since the beginning (in 1914) the ARRL has competed to be THE national organization for amateur radio among MANY such organizations. That is history."

They won - way back in the 1920s.

AF6AY: "It may not be what you get from the League and they would not really tell EVERYTHING of times back then."

What would you have them tell? That other radio organizations went after broadcasting and other interests?

AF6AY: "The ARRL won."

Yep - way back in the 1920s.

AF6AY: "Long before you were conceived, probably before your biological parents were conceived."

Long before *you* were conceived, Len. So what?

AF6AY: "PUBLISHING made it for them, gave them the profits on which to build and eventually have that over-mentioned diamond terrace with all its bricks."

How do you know, Len? You weren't there. And way back in the 1920s, the only thing ARRL published was QST and a call directory. The first Handbook didn't appear until 1926 and the other books came later.

ARRL was built on membership dues, donations, and its specific focus on amateur radio. Did any other US amateur radio organization send representatives to the radio conferences in Paris in the 1920s and fight for treaty recognition of amateur radio?

AF6AY: "you've said yourself that 'cw' is a DIGITAL mode. You don't use any other mode but 'cw,' do you?"

You'd be surprised...

N2EY: "I agree that robot stations should not be allowed to roam everywhere in the bands. But neither should they be outlawed.:

AF6AY: "Why do you care,...All you do is play radiotelegrapher. Star-D isn't for 'cw.' Those Jetson-like robot stations aren't for 'cw.' You don't even drink ALE on HF...:-)"

You don't know much about digital modes in amateur radio, do you, Len? Nor about the issues of automatic operation on HF.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: A POEM  
by WA2JJH on November 22, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The longest E-HAM debate I have seen! Today we present THE JIVE TURKEY AWARD.

An eclectic mix. LEN being an ABSOLUTE SCHMUCKAMAS MAXIMIS, and a total m.f..c.s.l.l.s.o.b.d.l.a.h. We have only just begun(back ground music with spot light)
As well as performing/being such a d.f.b.p.o.S S.b.d.u.t.a , pugnacious, caustic, anti-social
anti-semetic, anti-CW bigot. He should win the persona non gratis and caustically lambasting award.
. E-Hams virtual FILTHY RED CARPET AWARD..
(A dirty red carpet, virtual, no show Ham show is not much different the worst Ham fest you last attended. HOWEVER, I HAVE A POEM. IT IS CALLED….MY LAST HAMFEST.

No or little ham gear. Lots-N- lots of SIX DOLLAR HOT DOGS that will make you feel very QUEER. Why did you drag your wife here!!! EVERY 5 MINUTES…..SHE SAYS….CAN WE GO NOW…..DEAR!!!!!!!!!!
Just say the heck with her!! I NEED another crappy AND OVER PRICED, Pis-poor WARM BEER!!!

JUST….. Lots of “”LENNY the LEMON—FREE-BASE-BONE-BAND RIGS.
GREASY, GRIMMY and SLIMMY dude’s buying up fake B.D.-YOUZ. They think the
Gang bangers will think them UNDER COVER PIGS! The other day the Gang bangers just called
Them cheap fat Jews!
Not a single ham here, that is for certain! Bargain time. For 25 cent, I got a moldy shower curtain!!!!!!
.
Just TONS-O-FUN. HEY …Look at all the Brick-a-Brack and Brack and Brick!!!
TOO much BROKEN used electronic P.O.S-!
LOOK at all the free-base bone banders .Hey…they bought the huge blow up doll of COLONEL SANDERS!!!!!!!!.

N2EY should be ELMER of the Year. A CLEAR WINNER, His Unique, style Some my say, little too passive/aggressive. HOWEVER, with IMPAIRED by ETHONOL RET.-MOS, like LENNY…. JIM is very effective and versatile "by proxy" ELMER for LENNY. Jim also is winning in cognitive skills, as well as KNOWING THE FACTS./FCC LAW-TRIVIA

HAPPY HOLIDAY AND 73 DE WA2JJH


 
RE: A POEM  
by WA2JJH on November 22, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The longest E-HAM debate I have seen! Today we present THE JIVE TURKEY AWARD.

An eclectic mix. LEN being an ABSOLUTE SCHMUCKAMAS MAXIMIS, and a total m.f..c.s.l.l.s.o.b.d.l.a.h. We have only just begun(back ground music with spot light)
As well as performing/being such a d.f.b.p.o.S S.b.d.u.t.a , pugnacious, caustic, anti-social
anti-semetic, anti-CW bigot. He should win the persona non gratis and caustically lambasting award.
. E-Hams virtual FILTHY RED CARPET AWARD..
(A dirty red carpet, virtual, no show Ham show is not much different the worst Ham fest you last attended. HOWEVER, I HAVE A POEM. IT IS CALLED….MY LAST HAMFEST.

No or little ham gear. Lots-N- lots of SIX DOLLAR HOT DOGS that will make you feel very QUEER. Why did you drag your wife here!!! EVERY 5 MINUTES…..SHE SAYS….CAN WE GO NOW…..DEAR!!!!!!!!!!
Just say the heck with her!! I NEED another crappy AND OVER PRICED, Pis-poor WARM BEER!!!

JUST….. Lots of “”LENNY the LEMON—FREE-BASE-BONE-BAND RIGS.
GREASY, GRIMMY and SLIMMY dude’s buying up fake B.D.-YOUZ. They think the
Gang bangers will think them UNDER COVER PIGS! The other day the Gang bangers just called
Them cheap fat Jews!
Not a single ham here, that is for certain! Bargain time. For 25 cent, I got a moldy shower curtain!!!!!!
.
Just TONS-O-FUN. HEY …Look at all the Brick-a-Brack and Brack and Brick!!!
TOO much BROKEN used electronic P.O.S-!
LOOK at all the free-base bone banders .Hey…they bought the huge blow up doll of COLONEL SANDERS!!!!!!!!.

N2EY should be ELMER of the Year. A CLEAR WINNER, His Unique, style Some my say, little too passive/aggressive. HOWEVER, with IMPAIRED by ETHONOL RET.-MOS, like LENNY…. JIM is very effective and versatile "by proxy" ELMER for LENNY. Jim also is winning in cognitive skills, as well as KNOWING THE FACTS./FCC LAW-TRIVIA

HAPPY HOLIDAY AND 73 DE WA2JJH


 
RE: easy cheap air laser  
by WA2JJH on November 22, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2006/12/how_to_build_an_3.html - 44k

Yo Lenny: BUILD THIS DEVICE. GET A LIFE!!
I CAN BE FOUND ON 14.178MHZ when I use SSB.
Lets have a QSO!
 
RE: CW and the State of Jimmy  
by K6LHA on November 24, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY vainly tried to argue on November 21, 2007:

KA3TGV: "In the late 1950's the 11 meter Novice Band was reassigned as a Class D Citizen's Band."

N2EY: "No, it wasn't. Novices had access to 11 meters only from 1951 to 1954. 11 meters was reassigned to cb in 1958."

AF6AY: "1958 *IS* 'the late 1950s.' :-)"

N2EY: "But 11 meters wasn't a "Novice band" after 1954."

Ahem...1954 is FIFTY THREE YEARS AGO. In 1958 the old '11 meter' amateur band was de-allocated, made extinct, kaput for amateur radio licensees' use. Didn't matter if one was a Novice class or any other class FORTY NINE YEARS AGO. That little slice of the upper HF EM spectrum was re-assigned to CITIZENS BAND RADIO SERVICE in 1958 for USA citizens. :-)

Hello? Do you fully understand how the FCC regulates things and has the power to re-allocate EM spectrum for ANY radio service? Or are you like one of the ANONYMOUSIES in here who think the ITU governs everything, regulates all communications everywhere? :-)
..........................
N2EY: "You ever build a working HF amateur radio transceiver, Len?"

...'you would be surprised...' [to use a favorite Miccolis macro] :-)
...........................
AF6AY: "Cornell Drentea has a very nice transceiver."

N2EY: "You mean KW7CD?"

No, I meant CORNELL DRENTEA. :-)

While I'm not an attorney, I just don't think an amateur radio license callsign is any sort of LEGAL NAME to be used for personal identification other than for amateur radio purposes. :-)

Having read the QEX article, it still looks to me like a PRE-PRODUCTION PROTOTYPE. That's my opinion based on seeing MANY such pre-production prototypes in the electronics industry (which includes 'radio' to offset your constant nagging minutiae non-corrections). That Drentea made it in his own home workshop does NOT INVALIDATE any use for SELLING it as a production product. That the article came out in a ham-radio-oriented magazine does NOT INVALIDATE that condition. :-)

But, you HAVE to STRESS YOUR insistence on what YOU believe is the ONLY Everlasting Truth. :-)
....................
N2EY: "It's homebrew, Len."

So is some beer...and spirits, Jimmy. :-) [Jimmy crack corn and he don't care? :-) ]
....................
AF6AY: "since the beginning (in 1914) the ARRL has competed to be THE national organization for amateur radio among MANY such organizations. That is history."

N2EY: "They won - way back in the 1920s."

'Won?' What did they 'win?' Besides the ability to wash your brains? :-)
..................
AF6AY: "PUBLISHING made it for them, gave them the profits on which to build and eventually have that over-mentioned diamond terrace with all its bricks."

N2EY: "How do you know, Len?"

Tsk. I can read the ARRL's own account of its history. I can read Thomas Whites well-researched history of early radio in the USA and compare that. I can read books such as 'Syntony and Spark' and 'The Continuous Wave' by Aitken (Princeton University Press) and do more comparison. I can read the IRS tax returns for the ARRL up to 2003 taxable year and see where (some) of their monies come and go. I can read (seemingly) endless ads for the ARRL publications in QST...which they don't have to pay for...and get their advertising come-ons in the mail (which go in the recycling cannister). The PAID staff (Sumner is one of the highest-paid) aren't doing their work in Newington for some nebulous 'love of ham radio.' :-)

N2EY: "ARRL was built on membership dues, donations, and its specific focus on amateur radio. Did any other US amateur radio organization send representatives to the radio conferences in Paris in the 1920s and fight for treaty recognition of amateur radio?"

Tsk. 1920 was EIGHTY SEVEN YEARS AGO, Jimmy...1929 was SEVENTY EIGHT YEARS AGO. :-)

There just wasn't any International Telecommunications Union back in the 1920s. ITU is a United Nations body and could NOT have existed prior to the USA involvement in WWII. Any 'treaties' of the 1920s would have been made with the CCITT, which doesn't exist as a separate entity now.

In the 1920s there was the League of Nations that was supposed to impede any more world wars. They also met in Switzerland just as the ITU does now. The League of Nations didn't stop or even impede the Second World War, did it? :-(
.....................

N2EY: "You'd be surprised..."

WOW! THE STANDARD MICCOLIS MACRO! A null statement having NO information, only a vague IMPLICATION! :-)

Tsk. You've used that MACRO for at least ten years, Jimmy. Isn't it time you made up a better one?
.....................
N2EY: "You don't know much about digital modes in amateur radio, do you, Len? Nor about the issues of automatic operation on HF."

Sweetums, after all your years of working CW on 40m you've leaned nothing about 'digital modes' nor any 'issues of automatic operation on HF.' All you've done is hone your skills at manual radiotelegraphy and PLAY at being the great guru in computer-modem forums. You still haven't learned to get along with others who do NOT share your vision of the universe as the verlasting Truth of All. Sigh.

Not to worry, Jimmy. You've got your 'fans' in here: Two ANONYMOUSIES without guts to identify their real callsigns and a Village crackhead who can't put English words together coherently. Be proud of being their champion. Now get busy on YOUR super-deluxe 'homebrew' transceiver and make it look like some kind of pre-production prototype that can compete esthetically with the California company known as Elecraft. Think you are up to it? I don't.
..................
I'm glad my wife and I were elsewhere over the Thanksgiving holiday period. Got relief from the self-righteous, self-important HAMS (and a lot of turkeys) who KNOW ALL ABOUT EVERYTHING and CONSTANTLY CRITICIZE EVERYONE not sharing their 'visions.' :-) Whatever you guys are taking, DON'T.

AF6AY
 
RE: CW and the State of Jimmy  
by RADIO123US on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
AF6AY said "I'm glad my wife and I were elsewhere over the Thanksgiving holiday period. Got relief from the self-righteous, self-important HAMS (and a lot of turkeys) who KNOW ALL ABOUT EVERYTHING and CONSTANTLY CRITICIZE EVERYONE not sharing their 'visions.' :-) Whatever you guys are taking, DON'T."

Len, I''m looking back at the previous posts, and the only one here that could be described as " self-righteous" and "self-important" is YOU....do you not read what you are writing ??? Folks here realize you are a NEWBIE (and it REALLY shows), and have given you alot of slack because they realize you know NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH about what you are speaking about...Len, I would suggest that YOU do some self-evaluation here...and maybe see a doctor for some different medication..whatever you are taking isn't working....
 
RE: CW and the State of our 'Hobby'  
by N2EY on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY previously wrote: "But 11 meters wasn't a "Novice band" after 1954."

AF6AY wrote: "Ahem...1954 is FIFTY THREE YEARS AGO."

And in that year Novices lost access to 11 meters. So when "11 meter cb" was created in 1958, 11 meters wasn't a "Novice band".

AF6AY: "In 1958 the old '11 meter' amateur band was de-allocated, made extinct, kaput for amateur radio licensees' use."

That's what I wrote, Len. FCC made that decision. It has proved to be a mistake, IMHO.

AF6AY: "Didn't matter if one was a Novice class or any other class FORTY NINE YEARS AGO."

Yes, it did. Novices weren't on 11 meters after 1954, so they didn't lose anything when the band was lost to other US amateurs in 1958. All other US hams except Technicians had full access to 11, which they lost in 1958.

AF6AY: "That little slice of the upper HF EM spectrum was re-assigned to CITIZENS BAND RADIO SERVICE in 1958 for USA citizens. :-)"

Yep. And as history has shown, FCC made a mistake in doing so.

AF6AY: "Hello? Do you fully understand how the FCC regulates things and has the power to re-allocate EM spectrum for ANY radio service?"

I know how FCC regulates, Len. They do not simply reallocate without considering the treaties and agreements that the USA has agreed to.

Amateurs were always secondary users on the 11 meter band, which was primarily for Industrial, Scientific and Medical uses. FCC reallocated it to the Land Mobile service in part because doing so did not violate the provisions of the treaties of the time.
(Another part was because the professionals of the time could manufacture inexpensive channelized transceivers for 11 meters).

AF6AY: "Or are you like one of the ANONYMOUSIES in here who think the ITU governs everything, regulates all communications everywhere? :-)"

FCC has taken the position many times that they will not do things that violate ITU treaties. That's why they would not consider waiving or eliminating the 5 wpm Morse Code test before July 2003.

N2EY: "You ever build a working HF amateur radio transceiver, Len?"

AF6AY: "...'you would be surprised...'"

In other words, no, you haven't.

I'm not surprised.

AF6AY: "Cornell Drentea has a very nice transceiver."

N2EY: "You mean KW7CD?"

AF6AY: "No, I meant CORNELL DRENTEA. :-)"

You mean KW7CD, then.

There can be more than one person named "Cornell Drentea". But there can only be one KW7CD at a given time.

AF6AY: "While I'm not an attorney, I just don't think an amateur radio license callsign is any sort of LEGAL NAME to be used for personal identification other than for amateur radio purposes. :-)"

Yet you use you callsign for identification here, Len.

Seems to be a double standard on your part.

AF6AY: "Having read the QEX article, it still looks to me like a PRE-PRODUCTION PROTOTYPE."

Well, the Star-10 has been in pre-production for a long, long time, then. More than a decade, according to the article.

And you haven't seen the inside of the rig, either.

AF6AY: "That's my opinion based on seeing MANY such pre-production prototypes in the electronics industry."

But you haven't built any HF amateur radio transceivers, Len. Not as homebrew nor as 'pre-production prototypes'.

AF6AY: "That Drentea made it in his own home workshop does NOT INVALIDATE any use for SELLING it as a production product. That the article came out in a ham-radio-oriented magazine does NOT INVALIDATE that condition. :-)"

Who said it did? Not me.

However, there is nothing to indicate that it is intended for manufacture in quantity, nor for sale. It's just a KW7CD homebrew project.

Why does that bother you, Len?

Are you jealous of those of us who can and do actually design, build, test, align and operate our own amateur radio equipment and stations?

AF6AY: "since the beginning (in 1914) the ARRL has competed to be THE national organization for amateur radio among MANY such organizations. That is history."

N2EY: "They won - way back in the 1920s."

AF6AY: "'Won?' What did they 'win?'"

The ARRL became *the* national organization for amateur radio among many such organizations that had wanted to be. That is history.

ARRL has been the #1 amateur radio organization in the USA since long before you were born, Len.

AF6AY: "Besides the ability to wash your brains? :-)"

No brainwashing, Len. Just the plain and simple facts.

AF6AY: "PUBLISHING made it for them, gave them the profits on which to build and eventually have that over-mentioned diamond terrace with all its bricks."

N2EY: "How do you know, Len?"

AF6AY: "Tsk. I can read the ARRL's own account of its history."

Does it say that publishing gave them the profits on which to build and eventually have that over-mentioned diamond terrace with all its bricks?

I don't think so.

AF6AY: "I can read Thomas Whites well-researched history of early radio in the USA and compare that. I can read books such as 'Syntony and Spark' and 'The Continuous Wave' by Aitken (Princeton University Press) and do more comparison. I can read the IRS tax returns for the ARRL up to 2003 taxable year and see where (some) of their monies come and go. I can read (seemingly) endless ads for the ARRL publications in QST...which they don't have to pay for...and get their advertising come-ons in the mail (which go in the recycling cannister)."

Ah - you *can* read. But have you? I think not.

AF6AY: "The PAID staff (Sumner is one of the highest-paid) aren't doing their work in Newington for some nebulous 'love of ham radio.' :-)"

Actually, they are. Having met several of them, I can say they are woefully underpaid for what they do, and hold the jobs out of love for ham radio.

That does not mean they are all infallible, nor that they always do what is best.

N2EY: "ARRL was built on membership dues, donations, and its specific focus on amateur radio. Did any other US amateur radio organization send representatives to the radio conferences in Paris in the 1920s and fight for treaty recognition of amateur radio?"

AF6AY: "Tsk. 1920 was EIGHTY SEVEN YEARS AGO, ...1929 was SEVENTY EIGHT YEARS AGO. :-)"

Why does any of tha matter?

AF6AY: "There just wasn't any International Telecommunications Union back in the 1920s. ITU is a United Nations body and could NOT have existed prior to the USA involvement in WWII."

I didn't mention ITU in connection with the 1920s, Len.

AF6AY: "Any 'treaties' of the 1920s would have been made with the CCITT, which doesn't exist as a separate entity now."

But which did exist then.

Before 1927, amateur radio existed only because a few governments such as the USA, UK, France and a few others allowed it to. The 1927 treaty recognized Amateur Radio internationally as a separate and distinct radio service, with its own bands of frequencies, regulations, and protections from other radio services. That was a major step forward, and it happened in large part because of ARRL efforts.

AF6AY: "In the 1920s there was the League of Nations that was supposed to impede any more world wars. They also met in Switzerland just as the ITU does now. The League of Nations didn't stop or even impede the Second World War, did it? :-("

Irrelevant, Len. The radio treaties of the 1920s had nothing to do with the League of Nations.

One major reason for the failure of the League of Nations was that the USA refused to join.

N2EY: "You don't know much about digital modes in amateur radio, do you, Len? Nor about the issues of automatic operation on HF."

AF6AY: "after all your years of working CW on 40m you've leaned nothing about 'digital modes' nor any 'issues of automatic operation on HF.'"

"leaned nothing"? Did you mean "learned nothing"?

If so, that's not true, Len. Not true at all.

AF6AY: "All you've done is hone your skills at manual radiotelegraphy and PLAY at being the great guru in computer-modem forums."

Wrong on both counts, Len.

But it's not about me. It's about the issues surrounding the use of digital modes and automatic operation of same on the amateur HF bands.

You apparently don't really understand those issues.

As for being a "great guru", I don't claim to be any sort of guru, expert, or authority on anything. I just have some knowledge that I'm glad to share with others. It seems to really bother you that I sometimes know more about something than you do, Len.

Sorry about your feelings, but I refuse to play ignorant just so you aren't proved wrong about something or other.

AF6AY: "You still haven't learned to get along with others who do NOT share your vision of the universe as the verlasting Truth of All. Sigh."

Actually, I've gotten along quite well with many who disagree with me. Including more than a few Directors of the organization called 'No-Code International'.

It seems to me that the only way anyone can "get along" with you is to agree with everything you write.

AF6AY: "You've got your 'fans' in here: Two ANONYMOUSIES without guts to identify their real callsigns and a Village crackhead who can't put English words together coherently. Be proud of being their champion."

I'm not out to be anybody's online "champion", Len. Just a radio amateur with 40+ years experience, a point of view, a computer and an internet connection. And the ability to express my point of view without calling people names.....

As for "ANONYMOUSIES", you don't seem to have a problem with those who prefer to remain anonymous *if* those people agree with you. Only if they disagree.

You've also posted many, many times to usenet without giving your name or any other positive identification.

Let's see:

nocwtest@aol.com
lenof21@aol.com
lenover21@aol.com
averyfine@aol.com
averyfineman@aol.com

are just some of the screen names you used. There are probably others you used that I haven't identified yet.

I recall that at one time you claimed to have *never* used "averyfine@aol.com" to post to rec.radio.amateur.policy. Which was then proven to be a false claim, because you had used that exact screen name.

So when it comes to things like anonymous posting, what's your problem, Len? Is it only a bad thing when others who disagree with you do it? But it's OK for you to do it, and for those who agree with you? Seems to be that way.

AF6AY: "Now get busy on YOUR super-deluxe 'homebrew' transceiver"

I've designed and built several amateur radio HF transceivers, Len. Operated them on the air, too. Also transmitters, receivers, power supplies, antenna matching units, control systems, test equipment, antennas, VFOs, cable assemblies, shack furniture and much more. All on my own time, with my own money, skills, tools and resources.

I've also assembled several usable personal computers from the parts of discarded and broken ones, but that's another interest of mine. The computer this was written on was assembled from parts of other machines at a total cost of $0 to me.

What amateur radio equipment have *you* designed and built, Len? Do you ever put *your* amateur station on the air?

AF6AY: "and make it look like some kind of pre-production prototype that can compete esthetically with the California company known as Elecraft."

Why should I do that, Len? I'm not in competition with that company. As I've said several times before, they're better radio designers than me.

AF6AY: "Think you are up to it? I don't."

So what? You're clearly not up to it either, Len. So we're even - except that I have actually designed and built more operational amateur radio equipment than you....

Sorry if that bothers you, but it's a fact.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: CW and the State of our 'Hobby'  
by RADIO123US on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N2EY said "You've also posted many, many times to usenet without giving your name or any other positive identification.
Let's see:
nocwtest@aol.com
lenof21@aol.com
lenover21@aol.com
averyfine@aol.com
averyfineman@aol.com "

Wow, I didn't know this about Len...the word "HYPOCRITE" certainly comes to mind here....
 
RE: CW and the State of our 'Hobby'  
by K6LHA on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
UNKNOWN entity posted on 25 November 2007:

"N2EY said "You've also posted many, many times to usenet without giving your name or any other positive identification.
Let's see:
nocwtest@aol.com
lenof21@aol.com
lenover21@aol.com
averyfine@aol.com
averyfineman@aol.com "

"Wow, I didn't know this about Len...the word "HYPOCRITE" certainly comes to mind here...."

At NO TIME were those screen names used to DECEIVE anyone on USENET. I wrote that on USENET several times and always identified myself by NAME, LEGAL name. No problem to me since my Ham Radio magazine articles' bylines have included my legal mailing address well before the Internet went public in 1991. E-ham.net is NOT USENET.

On the other hand, GUTLESS little children, possessing NO COURAGE to identify themselves, hide behind pseudonyms and call others names and attempt to defame and degrade them. That's a SICKNESS and I'm glad I'm not SICK like those little babies.

Feel free to post your most sulpherous pejoratives all from HIDING behind a FALSE identity. Perhaps you have NO amateur callsign? I have one and my legal mailing address is in the FCC database, both for commercial and amateur radio licenses.

You are just another Internet CRYBABY taking your personal frustrations out on others. That won't help your affliction. You are still SICK and don't have the COURAGE to identify yourself. Poor baby.

AF6AY
 
RE: CW and the State of our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
SSGT= STAPHGOLLOCOCCCI SARGENT. AMPERSOON

YOU MUST HAVE GOT YOU'R HAM TICKET FOR LESS THAN CIVIL
REASONS.

1)TO BE A TOTAL ASS HOLE TO EHAM
2)TO LIABLE AND SLANDER
3)LIE
4)GIVE DECEPTIVE INTEL
5)HAVE A LEGIT AOL ADDRESS FOR ID
6)MAKE RACIST REMARKS
7)DO YOUR PART OF A PLOT TO TURN HAM RADIO INTO A 1.8-30MHZ CB LIKE SERVICE
ROFLMAO AT YOU====SS=SUPER SCHMUCK!!!!

BTW MANY OF US HERE HAVE A "BACK STORY" EHAMS WORST ABUSERS. IT IS A PVT YAHOO GROUP.

HAHAHAHHAHHA----;) YOU HAVE OVER 3OO POST'S!!!!!!!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! 73 MERRY XMAS TO YOU AND UP YOURS
 
RE: CW and the State of our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
SSGT= STAPHGOLLOCOCCCI SARGENT. AMPERSOON

YOU MUST HAVE GOT YOU'R HAM TICKET FOR LESS THAN CIVIL
REASONS.

1)TO BE A TOTAL ASS HOLE TO EHAM
2)TO LIABLE AND SLANDER
3)LIE
4)GIVE DECEPTIVE INTEL
5)HAVE A LEGIT AOL ADDRESS FOR ID
6)MAKE RACIST REMARKS
7)DO YOUR PART OF A PLOT TO TURN HAM RADIO INTO A 1.8-30MHZ CB LIKE SERVICE
ROFLMAO AT YOU====SS=SUPER SCHMUCK!!!!

BTW MANY OF US HERE HAVE A "BACK STORY" EHAMS WORST ABUSERS. IT IS A PVT YAHOO GROUP.

HAHAHAHHAHHA----;) YOU HAVE OVER 3OO POST'S!!!!!!!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! 73 MERRY XMAS TO YOU AND UP YOURS
 
RE: CW and the State of our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
SSGT= STAPHGOLLOCOCCCI SARGENT. AMPERSOON

YOU MUST HAVE GOT YOU'R HAM TICKET FOR LESS THAN CIVIL
REASONS.

1)TO BE A TOTAL ASS HOLE TO EHAM
2)TO LIABLE AND SLANDER
3)LIE
4)GIVE DECEPTIVE INTEL
5)HAVE A LEGIT AOL ADDRESS FOR ID
6)MAKE RACIST REMARKS
7)DO YOUR PART OF A PLOT TO TURN HAM RADIO INTO A 1.8-30MHZ CB LIKE SERVICE
ROFLMAO AT YOU====SS=SUPER SCHMUCK!!!!

BTW MANY OF US HERE HAVE A "BACK STORY" EHAMS WORST ABUSERS. IT IS A PVT YAHOO GROUP.

HAHAHAHHAHHA----;) YOU HAVE OVER 3OO POST'S!!!!!!!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! 73 MERRY XMAS TO YOU AND UP YOURS
 
RE: CW and the State of our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
SSGT= STAPHGOLLOCOCCCI SARGENT. AMPERSOON

YOU MUST HAVE GOT YOU'R HAM TICKET FOR LESS THAN CIVIL
REASONS.

1)TO BE A TOTAL ASS HOLE TO EHAM
2)TO LIABLE AND SLANDER
3)LIE
4)GIVE DECEPTIVE INTEL
5)HAVE A LEGIT AOL ADDRESS FOR ID
6)MAKE RACIST REMARKS
7)DO YOUR PART OF A PLOT TO TURN HAM RADIO INTO A 1.8-30MHZ CB LIKE SERVICE
ROFLMAO AT YOU====SS=SUPER SCHMUCK!!!!

BTW MANY OF US HERE HAVE A "BACK STORY" EHAMS WORST ABUSERS. IT IS A PVT YAHOO GROUP.

HAHAHAHHAHHA----;) YOU HAVE OVER 3OO POST'S!!!!!!!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! 73 MERRY XMAS TO YOU AND UP YOURS
 
RE: CW and the State of our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
SSGT= STAPHGOLLOCOCCCI SARGENT. AMPERSOON

YOU MUST HAVE GOT YOU'R HAM TICKET FOR LESS THAN CIVIL
REASONS.

1)TO BE A TOTAL ASS HOLE TO EHAM
2)TO LIABLE AND SLANDER
3)LIE
4)GIVE DECEPTIVE INTEL
5)HAVE A LEGIT AOL ADDRESS FOR ID
6)MAKE RACIST REMARKS
7)DO YOUR PART OF A PLOT TO TURN HAM RADIO INTO A 1.8-30MHZ CB LIKE SERVICE
ROFLMAO AT YOU====SS=SUPER SCHMUCK!!!!

BTW MANY OF US HERE HAVE A "BACK STORY" EHAMS WORST ABUSERS. IT IS A PVT YAHOO GROUP.

HAHAHAHHAHHA----;) YOU HAVE OVER 3OO POST'S!!!!!!!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! 73 MERRY XMAS TO YOU AND UP YOURS
 
RE: CW and the State of our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
SSGT= STAPHGOLLOCOCCCI SARGENT. AMPERSOON

YOU MUST HAVE GOT YOU'R HAM TICKET FOR LESS THAN CIVIL
REASONS.

1)TO BE A TOTAL ASS HOLE TO EHAM
2)TO LIABLE AND SLANDER
3)LIE
4)GIVE DECEPTIVE INTEL
5)HAVE A LEGIT AOL ADDRESS FOR ID
6)MAKE RACIST REMARKS
7)DO YOUR PART OF A PLOT TO TURN HAM RADIO INTO A 1.8-30MHZ CB LIKE SERVICE
ROFLMAO AT YOU====SS=SUPER SCHMUCK!!!!

BTW MANY OF US HERE HAVE A "BACK STORY" EHAMS WORST ABUSERS. IT IS A PVT YAHOO GROUP.

HAHAHAHHAHHA----;) YOU HAVE OVER 3OO POST'S!!!!!!!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! 73 MERRY XMAS TO YOU AND UP YOURS
 
RE: CW and the State of our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
SSGT= STAPHGOLLOCOCCCI SARGENT. AMPERSOON

YOU MUST HAVE GOT YOU'R HAM TICKET FOR LESS THAN CIVIL
REASONS.

1)TO BE A TOTAL ASS HOLE TO EHAM
2)TO LIABLE AND SLANDER
3)LIE
4)GIVE DECEPTIVE INTEL
5)HAVE A LEGIT AOL ADDRESS FOR ID
6)MAKE RACIST REMARKS
7)DO YOUR PART OF A PLOT TO TURN HAM RADIO INTO A 1.8-30MHZ CB LIKE SERVICE
ROFLMAO AT YOU====SS=SUPER SCHMUCK!!!!

BTW MANY OF US HERE HAVE A "BACK STORY" EHAMS WORST ABUSERS. IT IS A PVT YAHOO GROUP.

HAHAHAHHAHHA----;) YOU HAVE OVER 3OO POST'S!!!!!!!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! 73 MERRY XMAS TO YOU AND UP YOURS
 
RE: CW and the State of our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
SSGT= STAPHGOLLOCOCCCI SARGENT. AMPERSOON

YOU MUST HAVE GOT YOU'R HAM TICKET FOR LESS THAN CIVIL
REASONS.

1)TO BE A TOTAL ASS HOLE TO EHAM
2)TO LIABLE AND SLANDER
3)LIE
4)GIVE DECEPTIVE INTEL
5)HAVE A LEGIT AOL ADDRESS FOR ID
6)MAKE RACIST REMARKS
7)DO YOUR PART OF A PLOT TO TURN HAM RADIO INTO A 1.8-30MHZ CB LIKE SERVICE
ROFLMAO AT YOU====SS=SUPER SCHMUCK!!!!

BTW MANY OF US HERE HAVE A "BACK STORY" EHAMS WORST ABUSERS. IT IS A PVT YAHOO GROUP.

HAHAHAHHAHHA----;) YOU HAVE OVER 3OO POST'S!!!!!!!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! 73 MERRY XMAS TO YOU AND UP YOURS
 
RE: CW and the State of our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
SSGT= STAPHGOLLOCOCCCI SARGENT. AMPERSOON

YOU MUST HAVE GOT YOU'R HAM TICKET FOR LESS THAN CIVIL
REASONS.

1)TO BE A TOTAL ASS HOLE TO EHAM
2)TO LIABLE AND SLANDER
3)LIE
4)GIVE DECEPTIVE INTEL
5)HAVE A LEGIT AOL ADDRESS FOR ID
6)MAKE RACIST REMARKS
7)DO YOUR PART OF A PLOT TO TURN HAM RADIO INTO A 1.8-30MHZ CB LIKE SERVICE
ROFLMAO AT YOU====SS=SUPER SCHMUCK!!!!

BTW MANY OF US HERE HAVE A "BACK STORY" EHAMS WORST ABUSERS. IT IS A PVT YAHOO GROUP.

HAHAHAHHAHHA----;) YOU HAVE OVER 3OO POST'S!!!!!!!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! 73 MERRY XMAS TO YOU AND UP YOURS
 
RE: CW and the State of our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
SSGT= STAPHGOLLOCOCCCI SARGENT. AMPERSOON

YOU MUST HAVE GOT YOU'R HAM TICKET FOR LESS THAN CIVIL
REASONS.

1)TO BE A TOTAL ASS HOLE TO EHAM
2)TO LIABLE AND SLANDER
3)LIE
4)GIVE DECEPTIVE INTEL
5)HAVE A LEGIT AOL ADDRESS FOR ID
6)MAKE RACIST REMARKS
7)DO YOUR PART OF A PLOT TO TURN HAM RADIO INTO A 1.8-30MHZ CB LIKE SERVICE
ROFLMAO AT YOU====SS=SUPER SCHMUCK!!!!

BTW MANY OF US HERE HAVE A "BACK STORY" EHAMS WORST ABUSERS. IT IS A PVT YAHOO GROUP.

HAHAHAHHAHHA----;) YOU HAVE OVER 3OO POST'S!!!!!!!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! 73 MERRY XMAS TO YOU AND UP YOURS
 
RE: CW and the State of our 'Hobby'  
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
SSGT= STAPHGOLLOCOCCCI SARGENT. AMPERSOON

YOU MUST HAVE GOT YOU'R HAM TICKET FOR LESS THAN CIVIL
REASONS.

1)TO BE A TOTAL ASS HOLE TO EHAM
2)TO LIABLE AND SLANDER
3)LIE
4)GIVE DECEPTIVE INTEL
5)HAVE A LEGIT AOL ADDRESS FOR ID
6)MAKE RACIST REMARKS
7)DO YOUR PART OF A PLOT TO TURN HAM RADIO INTO A 1.8-30MHZ CB LIKE SERVICE
ROFLMAO AT YOU====SS=SUPER SCHMUCK!!!!

BTW MANY OF US HERE HAVE A "BACK STORY" EHAMS WORST ABUSERS. IT IS A PVT YAHOO GROUP.

HAHAHAHHAHHA----;) YOU HAVE OVER 3OO POST'S!!!!!!!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! 73 MERRY XMAS TO YOU AND UP YOURS
 
RE: END OF THREAD--ANDERSPOONS FOLLY  
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
SSGT= STAPHGOLLOCOCCCI SARGENT. AMPERSOON

YOU MUST HAVE GOT YOU'R HAM TICKET FOR LESS THAN CIVIL
REASONS.

1)TO BE A TOTAL ASS HOLE TO EHAM
2)TO LIABLE AND SLANDER
3)LIE
4)GIVE DECEPTIVE INTEL
5)HAVE A LEGIT AOL ADDRESS FOR ID
6)MAKE RACIST REMARKS
7)DO YOUR PART OF A PLOT TO TURN HAM RADIO INTO A 1.8-30MHZ CB LIKE SERVICE
ROFLMAO AT YOU====SS=SUPER SCHMUCK!!!!

BTW MANY OF US HERE HAVE A "BACK STORY" EHAMS WORST ABUSERS. IT IS A PVT YAHOO GROUP.

HAHAHAHHAHHA----;) YOU HAVE OVER 3OO POST'S!!!!!!!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! 73 MERRY XMAS TO YOU AND UP YOURS

 
RE: END OF THREAD--ANDERSPOONS FOLLY  
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
SSGT= STAPHGOLLOCOCCCI SARGENT. AMPERSOON

YOU MUST HAVE GOT YOU'R HAM TICKET FOR LESS THAN CIVIL
REASONS.

1)TO BE A TOTAL ASS HOLE TO EHAM
2)TO LIABLE AND SLANDER
3)LIE
4)GIVE DECEPTIVE INTEL
5)HAVE A LEGIT AOL ADDRESS FOR ID
6)MAKE RACIST REMARKS
7)DO YOUR PART OF A PLOT TO TURN HAM RADIO INTO A 1.8-30MHZ CB LIKE SERVICE
ROFLMAO AT YOU====SS=SUPER SCHMUCK!!!!

BTW MANY OF US HERE HAVE A "BACK STORY" EHAMS WORST ABUSERS. IT IS A PVT YAHOO GROUP.

HAHAHAHHAHHA----;) YOU HAVE OVER 3OO POST'S!!!!!!!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! 73 MERRY XMAS TO YOU AND UP YOURS

Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
 
RE: END OF THREAD--ANDERSPOONS FOLLY  
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
SSGT= STAPHGOLLOCOCCCI SARGENT. AMPERSOON

YOU MUST HAVE GOT YOU'R HAM TICKET FOR LESS THAN CIVIL
REASONS.

1)TO BE A TOTAL ASS HOLE TO EHAM
2)TO LIABLE AND SLANDER
3)LIE
4)GIVE DECEPTIVE INTEL
5)HAVE A LEGIT AOL ADDRESS FOR ID
6)MAKE RACIST REMARKS
7)DO YOUR PART OF A PLOT TO TURN HAM RADIO INTO A 1.8-30MHZ CB LIKE SERVICE
ROFLMAO AT YOU====SS=SUPER SCHMUCK!!!!

BTW MANY OF US HERE HAVE A "BACK STORY" EHAMS WORST ABUSERS. IT IS A PVT YAHOO GROUP.

HAHAHAHHAHHA----;) YOU HAVE OVER 3OO POST'S!!!!!!!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! 73 MERRY XMAS TO YOU AND UP YOURS

Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
 
RE: END OF THREAD--ANDERSPOONS FOLLY  
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! 73 MERRY XMAS TO YOU AND UP YOURS

Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
 
RE: END OF THREAD--ANDERSPOONS FOLLY  
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
73
 
RE: END OF THREAD--ANDERSPOONS FOLLY  
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
and we keep going
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

73
UG
 
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ  
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 
RE: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ  
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 
RE: AE6XX IS WHY CW SHOULD BE A REQUIRMENT  
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ



RE: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Reply
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ



RE: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Reply
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ



RE: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Reply
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ



RE: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Reply
by WA2JJH on November 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ