Date: Fri, 4 Mar 94 04:30:08 PST From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup Errors-To: Ham-Policy-Errors@UCSD.Edu Reply-To: Ham-Policy@UCSD.Edu Precedence: Bulk Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #96 To: Ham-Policy Ham-Policy Digest Fri, 4 Mar 94 Volume 94 : Issue 96 Today's Topics: Have a say about ARRL policy HELP W/2 METER BAND PLAN Morse Whiners rec.dan.pickersgill.monologue Send Replies or notes for publication to: Send subscription requests to: Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu. Archives of past issues of the Ham-Policy Digest are available (by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-policy". We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 03 Mar 94 09:34:25 EST From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!caen!malgudi.oar.net!wariat.org!mystis!dan@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Have a say about ARRL policy To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu hlester@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (howard n lester) writes: > In article <1994Feb28.230819.12135@arrl.org>, > Ed Hare (KA1CV) wrote: > >You can also usually find your Division Director at most major hamfests > > How much do they usually sell for? > > :) > Do you really want us to tell you what they are WORTH? :-) -- "We are all now safe from crime. The Brady 'Law' has taken effect. All can sleep peacefully knowing our paternalistic government will take care and protect us! Of course I also believe in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy and The Great Pumpkin!" ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 94 05:43:03 GMT From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.cerf.net!ccnet.com!ccnet.com!not-for-mail@network.ucsd.edu Subject: HELP W/2 METER BAND PLAN To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu James W. Jones (jjones@bigcat.missouri.edu) wrote: : Will someone please share with me the arrangement of the 2 meter band? : What I need the most is the portion of the band that is reserved for : simplex operation. I fear just selecting a random frequency to use as : a simplex channel as it may be part or a repeater pair. Part of the : band is reserved for simplex but I am not sure as to which part. : Appreciate any help on this. : Jim Jones K5GSH : jjones@bigcat.missouri.edu You might start with these frequencies for fm simplex in the 2meter band: 146.415 146.430 146.445 146.460 146.475 146.490 146.505 146.520 nationwide fm simplex calling frequency 146.535 146.550 146.565 146.580 may have packet 146.595 147.405 147.420 147.435 147.450 147.465 147.480 147.495 147.510 147.525 147.540 147.555 147.570 147.585 These frequencies generally are used for simplex ... but local conditions and milage may vary. Almost any night of the week you will hear nets operating on one or more of these frequencies. Bob n6fri -- Bob Wilkins bwilkins@cave.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Mar 94 09:54:39 EST From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!caen!malgudi.oar.net!wariat.org!mystis!dan@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Morse Whiners To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu jmaynard@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: > In article <1994Feb28.232131.12347@arrl.org>, > Ed Hare (KA1CV) wrote: > >I love the sense of kinship that we all feel for each other, just > >because we are hams. We will survive code, or no code. I don't > >know if we will survive the division. Somehow, we will ultimately > >decide the fate of Morse code, as a community and as a Service. > >The way we go about that will shape our hobby more than the final > >outcome. > > Ed, that's just it: I think that to completely eliminate the code will destro > the amateur radio service. Period. > > Why do I think this? I need look no farther than the local two meter boxes, > which are now completely overrun with refugees from Channel 19. The quality o > the service has declined in the years since the no-code Tech was introduced. > > I'd be willing to put up with that if the promises of no-code advocates that > we'd see an influx of technical geniuses who would restore the service to its > glory days of technological innovation had been borne out. Instead, I have ye > to see a single technical innovation attributable to someone who has joined > the service purely because of the availability of the no-code Tech. Even the > most rabid of anti-code advocates have yet to be able to cite an instance. I have yet to hear ONE advance of coded hams in the last 20 years, not the 3 that the no-code license has been here. (The 1200 baud packet info super-dirt-road does not count as an inovation.) > People get nasty when things they hold dear are threatened. I'm not at all > surprised that the continuing no-code advocacy is producing heated reactions, > for they are doing exactly that. > > The no-code license is the Brady Act of ham radio: it's the camel's nose in > the tent of destroying the fundamentals of the service. Like the Brady Act, i > should be thrown out on its ear. Comparing the no-code license to the Brady Law is absurd in the extream. -- "We are all now safe from crime. The Brady 'Law' has taken effect. All can sleep peacefully knowing our paternalistic government will take care and protect us! Of course I also believe in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy and The Great Pumpkin!" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Mar 94 09:33:27 EST From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!math.ohio-state.edu!caen!malgudi.oar.net!wariat.org!mystis!dan@network.ucsd.edu Subject: rec.dan.pickersgill.monologue To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu Ed Ellers writes: > Dan Pickersgill writes: > > >> Clearly wrong? How so. I did it, and thousands before me did it. Are you > >> saying that just because it requires effort, it shouldn't be an element? > >> Sounds like an appeal to laziness to me. Ed, please watch your quotes, I did not say the above. Thanks. 73, > > It is clearly wrong to require Morse knowledge for the use of other modes > because that knowledge does NOT contribute to more effective use of those > modes. THAT is my argument against the Morse test -- not that "I can't do it > not that "it isn't fair!," but that it simply is not RELEVANT knowledge (sinc > it is needed for only ONE of many possible modes) and therefore should not be > required. > > "I did it, and thousands before me did it" isn't a valid reason for keeping t > element; it says nothing about the need or desirability of such testing. -- "We are all now safe from crime. The Brady 'Law' has taken effect. All can sleep peacefully knowing our paternalistic government will take care and protect us! Of course I also believe in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy and The Great Pumpkin!" ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 94 10:48:19 GMT From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!menudo.uh.edu!uuneo.NeoSoft.com!sugar.NeoSoft.COM!not-for-mail@network.ucsd.edu To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References <2kr8hd$6ck@mercury.mcs.com>, <2krktk$g6e@sugar.neosoft.com>, <2krlr8$ggi@mercury.mcs.com> Subject : Re: Morse Whiners In article <2krlr8$ggi@mercury.mcs.com>, Bill Blum N9VLS wrote: >In article <2krktk$g6e@sugar.neosoft.com>, >A great x ray technician! wrote: >>In article <2kr8hd$6ck@mercury.mcs.com>, >>Bill Blum N9VLS wrote: >> >>>Where are we going? Planet 10! When are we going? Real Soon! >> >>Buckeroo Banzai!!! > >shhhhhhhhhh. >I'm cutting phasing cables for a DF antenna. You're bothering me. DFing stations on the USENET doesn't work too well. And, of course, I elect NOT to use Two Meters. Hummm... -- "Meeting him, shaking his hand--it was overwhelming. It was better than sex. Of course, I haven't had sex before, but I'm sure this was better." --A Codeless Technician, after meeting Dan Pickersgill for the first time. ------------------------------ End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #96 ******************************