QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/infoham/940663.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 26.7 KB

Date: Tue, 14 Jun 94 16:31:33 PDT
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #663
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Tue, 14 Jun 94       Volume 94 : Issue  663

Today's Topics:
                           "73's" (2 msgs)
                            Address Needed
             ATV transmitts on every UHF channel - why ?
               Beware of RADIOKIT kits (IMHO) (2 msgs)
                    Ford Explorer and TS-50 Noise
                       Help!Packet everywhere!
               HELP Trying to locate WB4LUR (Lewis Ott)
                      LOOKING FOR CLUB STATIONS
                         Morse Code trainers
                 Poor Man's UHF Transmitter Combiner?
             REJECTED: Info-Hams Digest V94 #661 (2 msgs)

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Info-Hams Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/info-hams".

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: 14 Jun 1994 16:59:53 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!news.duke.edu!eff!news.kei.com!ssd.intel.com!chnews![e-mail]
Subject: "73's"
To: [e-mail]

Robin Ludlow ([e-mail]) wrote:

: If you want to say: <There were a lot of 73s being bandied around>, then
: add the <s>. There is absolutely no reason for the apostrophe.
: It is not possessive (singular or plural), and it is not a contraction.
: Robin Ludlow, VE3YE

Hi Robin, Once more from the dictionary... apostrophe - a mark ' used to
indicate the ... plural of letters or figures (numbers)... as in no if's,
and's, or but's.

73's, KG7BK, OOTC, [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 1994 16:53:15 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uhog.mit.edu!news.kei.com!ssd.intel.com!chnews![e-mail]
Subject: "73's"
To: [e-mail]

Mike Willis ([e-mail]) wrote:

: No. I disagree. It is a code. Its plural is 73. Here is another word,
: SHEEP. Have yos seen many sheeps recently? Back to the point, 73 is not
: English. You would not use it in general conversation with non-amateurs.
: Mike

73 is a code less than 1% of the time... sheep, sheep; that's a couple of
sheep's (refering to the word "sheep" rather than the animal "sheep").
Sheeps appears in your posting. There are 73 characters in one line of your
posting. There *are* a lot of 73's in this posting and I agree with another
poster that this subject is too boring to continue.

73's, KG7BK, OOTC, [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 94 20:53:56 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Address Needed
To: [e-mail]

          Just got around to reading a posting from Info-Hams that I
          had stored back in March and read a delightful message
          posted by "Greg" entitled "Tickling the Ether".  The date of
          the posting was Tuesday, 15 March 1994, at 15:37:23.

          I'd like to send "Greg" a message but can't decipher his
          e-mail address from the long stream at the "From" line.  Can
          someone help me?  My e-mail address is:

                            [e-mail]

                                    Thanks and 73!

                                    Richard L. Knox
                                    KD4BRL

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 15:43:55 -0400
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!niven.ksc.nasa.gov!algol.ksc.nasa.gov!k4dii.ksc.nasa.gov![e-mail]
Subject: ATV transmitts on every UHF channel - why ?
To: [e-mail]

In article <2tjc50$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mike Stramba) wrote:
> Would the transmitter be generating strong enough harmonics that the signal
> is being sent on every UHF channel ?

Mike-

It's more likely that your TV is receiving signals at an intermediate
frequency.

73, Fred, K4DII

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 1994 13:08:04 -0400
From: newstf01.cr1.aol.com!search01.news.aol.com![e-mail]
Subject: Beware of RADIOKIT kits (IMHO)
To: [e-mail]

In article <2tgfh6$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeff Jones)
writes:

About complaints with poor quality and missing parts with kits sold
by Radiokit.


Kit builders should take a look at all the new kits being produced by
TenTec.  Ten Tec is well known for the best customer service and very
high quality radios.  No reason why the kits would not be the same
high quality.

Duffy de WB8NUT

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 1994 17:40:45 GMT
From: butch!rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com!deacon.sanders.lockheed.com![e-mail]
Subject: Beware of RADIOKIT kits (IMHO)
To: [e-mail]

In article <2tg8e9$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Covington) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Michael Covington)
>Subject: Re: Beware of RADIOKIT kits (IMHO)
>Date: 13 Jun 1994 00:15:05 GMT

>That is unfortunate.  Radiokit has been around for quite a few years;
>surely they wouldn't have lasted that long if that kind of performance
>were the norm.

>--
>< Michael A. Covington, Assc Rsch Scientist, Artificial Intelligence Center >
>< The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7415 USA    [e-mail] >
>< Unless specifically indicated, I am not speaking for the University. >    <><
>For information about any U.Ga. graduate program, email [e-mail].

Not going to mention any callsigns or names but RadioKit was founded by a
very nice couple who are well known in amateur circles in NE and all over.
They no longer own it and the present owner does not seem to be interested
in providing the level of service and quality that was originally there
under the earlier mangement.  In fact the previous owners are disappointed
with how things are being presently handled.  Thats all I will say except
this should be a wake-up call to the present owner.

Joel - KC1SG
 ===
 |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
 | Joel B. Chappell - KC1SG                         Lockheed Sanders  |
 | Principal Engineer - Electrical                  Nashua, NH 03061  |
 |                                                                    |
 |         -= Standard Disclaimer:  All opinions are mine. =-         |
 |                                                                    |
 | E-Mail to: [e-mail]                    |
 | or                                                                 |
 | Fido: 1:132/204.1                                                  |
 |                                                                    |
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 19:41:01 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!wotan.compaq.com!twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com![e-mail]
Subject: Ford Explorer and TS-50 Noise
To: [e-mail]

>I recently acquired a Kenwood TS-50 for mobile HF and installed it in my
>1992 Ford Explorer.  With the key in the Accessory position (all electronics
>fired up but engine not running), the noise on HF is S9 or better across
>all bands, but most accute on 17 and 20m.  Anyone out there in netland
>solved this problem already???
>

Not much of a description here Craig, but if you haven't tried running
the power cables directly to the battery and putting a ferrite core on
them I would do that first.  Be careful of running the power cables over
any control modules in wire harnesses where it could pickup noise
from the control modules.  Moving the rig if you discover it is near a control
module will be beneficial also.

Good Luck.

Earl Morse
KZ8E
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 94 19:08:44 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Help!Packet everywhere!
To: [e-mail]

Sorry for attention grabbing title, but I'm confused. I have the following:

                a                b
1:Alinco 1200 ------>KPC-3---------------|
                                         |       c
                                      SW X--COM2----|
2:GPS------------------------------------|          |
                                                  AEAFAX
                                                    |
                                                    | d
                                                    |
                                                COMPUTER
                                                    |
               Earphones                            |
                   |                                |
3:Yaesu 890--------|                                |
                   |                         COM3---|
                PK232--------------------------|
                   |
4:Yaesu 736--------|


The Alinco / KPC3 is kept on 24 hrs/day, on the local packet freq. What I
have noticed is that packets received on the Alinco can be heard clearly
on the 890 earphones, show up on the COM3 terminal pgm monitoring the
PK232; they can be heard clearly by others when I transmit on the 736, and
they cause gibberish to sho up on the terminal program monitoring the GPS.
They also cause interferrence on the AEAFAX reception.
I have tried disconnecting lines at "a", "b", "c", and "d". Disconnecting
at "a" eliminates the problem, but I need that connected. Disconnecting
at either "b", "c", or "d" reduces the interferrence by about 1/2, but
does not eliminate it. Removing the AEAFAX does not help, nor does bypassing
the switch and eliminating the line to the GPS, nor does removing the
line to the 736, when monitoring the problem at the earphones or at the
GPS. Disconnecting the line from the pk232 to the 890 Earphone "Y" eliminates
the problem at the earphones, but not at the other problem areas.
The 890, 1200 and pk232 share a common power supply (grounded), but the
KPC3 and the GPS use a floating battery eliminator type power supplys, and
the 736 is AC line powered. I originally had the 1200 running on batteries
with little difference. I have tried running case grounds between the
1200 and the KPC-3, and also between the KPC3 and the common power
supply ground, with no effect. I have had previous problems with the
power circuitry in the 1200 and with the rs232 line drivers in the pk232,
but everything seems to be working OK other than this problem now.
I had thought that I had some sort of a ground loop problem, but I am
beginning to beleive that it is more serious. Any ideas where to start
looking for the problem. Basically every one of these devices work fine
if they are the only thing connected, but when hooked up together I have
problems.   Note: the interferring packets are packets being received, not
packets being transmitted.

   Thanks in advance for any help.

    73   de    BJ      N3JLQ

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 16:58:05 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.ess.harris.com![e-mail]
Subject: HELP Trying to locate WB4LUR (Lewis Ott)
To: [e-mail]

My first amateur radio contact was on July 1969 nearly 25 years ago.
It was with WN4LUR, Lewis Ott.  I have tried to contact him using
his callbook address (He is WB4LUR now).  The mail was returned with
the notice "FORWARDING HAS EXPIRED".

His address as of 11/2/84 was Bluff City, Tennessee.

If anyone knows of his whereabouts I'd like the information so that
I can contact him via mail.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Harv
WB4NPL
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 12:09:47 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!relay.puug.pt!news.inesc.pt!animal.inescn.pt!ciup2.ncc.up.pt!news.ci.ua.pt![e-mail]
Subject: LOOKING FOR CLUB STATIONS
To: [e-mail]

     Hi ,tnx for all the mails u have sent me . I'm very glad to see
that they are many fellow ham-students...I think that it's time to create a
NET with the main goal of exchange ideas , .... a HF dx Net would be nice to start.The problem rigth now are the exams ... but when they finnish we will post
again and make a sked for all ...
    My best regards to all , and good luck on your exams (same to me !)
    best 73's keep the dx'ing
    CT1ENQ - (CT5EPG - Jamboree)

|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Jose' Miguel M.B.Fonte         | Aveiro University - PORTUGAL - EUROPE   |
| Box 108 - 4801 Guimaraes - PT. | Electronics and Telecomunications Dept. |
| E-mail : [e-mail]     |---|-------------------------------------|
| PACKET : [e-mail] |  Ham:CT1ENQ - Univer.Club: CT6ARU   |
|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
Vai-se de fracasso em fracasso ate' ao exito final.
                            Charles F. Keitering

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 14:28:13 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcom2![e-mail]
Subject: Morse Code trainers
To: [e-mail]

I've been using a Morse Code trainer that I bought from Brian Jordan,
G4EWJ.  It has a 1 character display, so the characters can be
replayed on the display for checking, as well as audibly.  It's a kit,
and is designed to be used without a package, so it's a bit
inconvenient for carrying around.  I built mine with the display board
in the same plane as the main board, and carry it in a plastic box
that holds the trainer and a small pair of earphones, also.  It is
oriented towards the UK license test, so it does auto delay up to
12WPM, although it'll go much faster, and you can get it to do
Farnsworth code for 13 or even 20 WPM.  It has very good tone and
volume.
  I also have an MFJ, and there seems to be clicks in the headphones.
My Pocket Morse Code Trainer came with a single earphone, and set up
for a mono earphone.  The jack is a stereo jack, so I'm going to add
the appropriate wire, and see how it sounds with better headphones.

Other training devices I know about are the Datong box, and "Uncle
Albert's Unique Keyer" from the January 94 QST.  AEA makes the MM3, I
think that also seems to be useful for code practice and I'm sure
there are others.  The G4EWJ unit, and "Uncle Albert's" have provision
for learning to send properly.  Do any others?

73, doug
(working on 13WPM)

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 1994 11:21:42 -0500
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!news.uh.edu!uuneo.neosoft.com!sugar.NeoSoft.COM![e-mail]
Subject: Poor Man's UHF Transmitter Combiner?
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
John Ackermann <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Assuming that we can put the new repeater on a channel close enough to be
>within the duplexer's passband, we need to come up with a way to inexpensively
>combine two 35 watt UHF transmitters.

You could also pick a frequency that's over 1 MHz away from the opposing
transmitter and combine them with notch cavities and circulators.  The method
you've described could be done easily.  Wilkinson power dividers and isolators
(make sure you use two isolators per port) will do quite nicely.  Measure
the heck out of it after you put it together to make sure there are no intermod
problems.  This is essentially how the commercial guys do it.

I've successfully combined two duplex stations on a single antenna, but one
was 440 MHz and the other was 420 MHz.  It was actually pretty simple.  If
you're interested, I'll drop you a copy of the diagram on it.



--
   Jim Reese, WD5IYT     |     "Real Texans don't let the truth get in
[e-mail] |          the way of a good story."

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 94 18:12:06 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: REJECTED: Info-Hams Digest V94 #661
To: [e-mail]

   ----- Mail rejected by CEO. -----
No Routing Link Available   Mail not sent to:john [e-mail]

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
From: [e-mail]
To:  [e-mail]
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #661
X-Ceo_Options: Document

CEO comments:
See document for message.




CEO document contents:

Info-Hams Digest            Tue, 14 Jun 94       Volume 94 : Issue  661

Today's Topics:
                                "73's"
                                (NONE)
                         ** QUESTION TO HTX-2
                           HTX 202 (2 msgs)
                Microwave bands (was Re: End of `440 i
            Satellite Tracking on the WEB ,just for Fun !
                                 Test
                              TH78 mods

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Info-Hams Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/info-hams".

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: Tue, 14 Jun 94 08:05:14 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!uos-ee!ee.surrey.ac.uk![e-mail]
Subject: "73's"
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Cecil A Moore) writes:
|>
|> Text item: Text_1
|>
|> >What has English got to do with 73? It is not an English word, it
|> >is a radio code. It is already plural... Mike
|>
|> Hey Mike, you need to get out of the shack more often. Before there
|> was such a thing as ham radio, 73 was (and is) an English figure and
|> should follow the rules of the English language, e.g. I can't believe
|> the number of 73's that I have seen lately on info-hams. Try composing
|> the preceeding sentence without pluralizing 73. :-)
|>
|> 73, KG7BK, OOTC, [e-mail]

No. I disagree. It is a code. Its plural is 73. Here is another word, SHEEP. Have
yos seen many sheeps recently? Back to the point, 73 is not English. You would not
use it in general conversation with non-amateurs. You could quite happily use it in
Spanish, French or Russian. Next we will have QRX's when called by more than one
station on cw .

Mike

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Jun 94 22:49:20 -0700
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!lavc![e-mail]
Subject: (NONE)
To: [e-mail]

N>From: [e-mail] (Scott Ehrlich)
N>Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
N>Subject: (none)
N>Date: 12 Jun 94 02:36:22 GMT
N>Organization: ucsd usenet gateway

N>help
  ----

The troops are on the way...


KE6HGL PAT.

06/13/94

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Jun 94 22:49:22 -0700
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!lavc![e-mail]
Subject: ** QUESTION TO HTX-2
To: [e-mail]

N>From: [e-mail] (Ray Wade)
N>Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
N>Subject: Re: ** QUESTION TO HTX-20
N>Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 18:10:00 GMT
N>Organization: TRO BBS


N> * OFFLINE 1.56 * If I throw a cat out the car window, is it kitty
N>litter? ............................................................

At what speed are they talking about? The higher the mph. the higher the
litter factor.

 EW NEWS
Anm  A 'mc

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 94 18:12:34 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: REJECTED: Info-Hams Digest V94 #661
To: [e-mail]

   ----- Mail rejected by CEO. -----
No Routing Link Available   Mail not sent to:gary [e-mail]

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
From: [e-mail]
To:  [e-mail]
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #661
X-Ceo_Options: Document

CEO comments:
See document for message.




CEO document contents:

Info-Hams Digest            Tue, 14 Jun 94       Volume 94 : Issue  661

Today's Topics:
                                "73's"
                                (NONE)
                         ** QUESTION TO HTX-2
                           HTX 202 (2 msgs)
                Microwave bands (was Re: End of `440 i
            Satellite Tracking on the WEB ,just for Fun !
                                 Test
                              TH78 mods

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Info-Hams Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/info-hams".

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: Tue, 14 Jun 94 08:05:14 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!uos-ee!ee.surrey.ac.uk![e-mail]
Subject: "73's"
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Cecil A Moore) writes:
|>
|> Text item: Text_1
|>
|> >What has English got to do with 73? It is not an English word, it
|> >is a radio code. It is already plural... Mike
|>
|> Hey Mike, you need to get out of the shack more often. Before there
|> was such a thing as ham radio, 73 was (and is) an English figure and
|> should follow the rules of the English language, e.g. I can't believe
|> the number of 73's that I have seen lately on info-hams. Try composing
|> the preceeding sentence without pluralizing 73. :-)
|>
|> 73, KG7BK, OOTC, [e-mail]

No. I disagree. It is a code. Its plural is 73. Here is another word, SHEEP. Have
yos seen many sheeps recently? Back to the point, 73 is not English. You would not
use it in general conversation with non-amateurs. You could quite happily use it in
Spanish, French or Russian. Next we will have QRX's when called by more than one
station on cw .

Mike

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Jun 94 22:49:20 -0700
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!lavc![e-mail]
Subject: (NONE)
To: [e-mail]

N>From: [e-mail] (Scott Ehrlich)
N>Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
N>Subject: (none)
N>Date: 12 Jun 94 02:36:22 GMT
N>Organization: ucsd usenet gateway

N>help
  ----

The troops are on the way...


KE6HGL PAT.

06/13/94

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Jun 94 22:49:22 -0700
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!lavc![e-mail]
Subject: ** QUESTION TO HTX-2
To: [e-mail]

N>From: [e-mail] (Ray Wade)
N>Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
N>Subject: Re: ** QUESTION TO HTX-20
N>Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 18:10:00 GMT
N>Organization: TRO BBS


N> * OFFLINE 1.56 * If I throw a cat out the car window, is it kitty
N>litter? ............................................................

At what speed are they talking about? The higher the mph. the higher the
litter factor.

 EW NEWS
Anm  A 'mc

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 1994 18:52:58 GMT
From: ncd.com!newshost.ncd.com!hansen.ncd.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2ti78m$[e-mail]>, <2tj6rp$[e-mail]>, <2tjr8j$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Microwave bands

I have had two 1.2 GHz repeaters in operation for an number of years, one for
over three years, the other for over 2 years.

When I first put them up, a lot of people were saying that it would not work.

Well 3+ years later, they do work.  When compaired to 70cm (440MHz) repeaters
at the same repeater site the 1.2 GHz repeaters work about the same.  There
are differences.  Sometimes the 70cm repeater has better coverage, but also
sometimes the 1.2 GHz repeater has better coverage!

The biggest problem with moving up to the microwave bands is that they require
more care.  Using crapy coax, bad connectors, etc just will not work.  In
checking out alot of the repeaters in the Bay Area, it is pretty clear that
many of these folks would have no success with any of the microwave bands.
They can barely keep the 2M/70cm repeaters working.

Some of the Hams in the Bay Area are starting to experiment with 2.4 GHz.  Fun
stuff!


Bottom line... If you have not tried it, try it! There is life above 1GHz!
You will be surprised!


Phil
de kj6nn

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 15:23:00 EST
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!dreaml![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2tct8t$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: VHF Maritime Outrage!!

The one thing I find so amusing about this thread is that all of the
people who are arguing that $7/yr is too much are forgetting one simple
thing: IT'S ONLY IF YOU WANT A VANITY CALLSIGN!!! If you don't want to pay
$7/yr, FINE! Keep the callsign the FCC issued you and shut up. $7/yr to
pick your own call is still a very reasonable amount of money, and if you
don't want to pay it, you don't have to.

-j


--
Jon Anhold N8USK   - PGP Key available on request -   ([e-mail])
Dreamland Network Systems                                     Cleveland, Ohio
"Where you come from is gone.. Where you thought you were going to was never
there, and where you are ain't no good unless you can get away from it."

------------------------------

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #663
******************************