I agree. It's probably better they battle each other screen to screen rather than filling the air waves with all their personal agendas.
Pete, wa2cwa On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 18:25:30 -0800 "Bob Macklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I see more activity on the QRZ and eHam message boards then I hear on > my > receivers. > > And it is probably just as well! > > Bob Macklin > K5MYJ > Seattle, Wa. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "peter markavage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <amradio@mailman.qth.net> > Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 6:15 PM > Subject: Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire > > > > Did you actually count how many "different" people actually > commented on > > these 50 pages? These "rejectors" of the proposal account for less > than > > .1% of the ham population. Show me better numbers and I'll have > some > > sympathy for your concern. Teller's comments also are almost three > years > > old. The proposal has gone through several iterations since then. > Some of > > the alternative proposals that are now being proposed on QRZ by > these > > ARRL proposal "rejectors" actually could provide much more harm to > AM. > > The ARRL proposal actually preserves our legacy mode out to 9KHz. > > > > Pete ,wa2cwa > > > > On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:37:26 -0500 "Brian Carling" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > writes: > > > > > > http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=107079 > > > > > > 50 Pages of well-reasoned discussion (in most cases) and > > > rebuttal by the people who have experienced the MENACE that > > > K4CJX, KQ6XA and their petty, "Anti-amateur-radio-as-we-know- > > > it" crowd are trying to FORCE on amateur radio. > > > > > > You will find VERY few supporters of this Bandwidth Proposal. > > > The whole thing needs to be rejected lock, stock and barrel. > > > I have left ARRL because of this, and the other (many) things > they > > > have done over the past few years to ruin amateur radio. > > > > > > They are NOT listening, and they are NO LONGER "Of, By and > > > For the Radio Amateur." > > > > > > They are now Of, By and For the Commercial, Digital Special > > > Interest Lobby headed by K4CJX and Winlink Pactor which has > > > totally over-ruled sound judgement in regards to the rules > > > governing automatic unattended HF digital stations > > > > > > The following is the BACKDROP to the lunacy that is now > > > prevailing in ARRL's Proposal (WHICH I understand may be > > > actually with the ENCOURAGEMENT AND COMPLICITY of FCC) > > > > > > http://www.zerobeat.net/bandplan-dissent.html > > > > > > A torpedo fired into the heeart of AM would NOT be out of step > with > > > > > > the kind of MANIPULATION that is already going on behind the > > > scenes. OR just the threat of it to intimidate others into > getting > > > on > > > board this train to hell in a hand basket. > > > > > > Your mileage may vary. My mileage will mostly stick with > > > preserving the right to HOMEBREW, and to operate AM > > > and CW without QRM from the PAC PESTS that belong > > > on VHF and above. > > > > > > On 5 Dec 2005 at 0:33, Donald Chester wrote: > > > > > > > I think we could have reasonably well predicted this: > > > > > > > > "...Perhaps the one thing most egregious to digital proponents > in > > > the ARRL > > > > bandwidth plan has been an exemption in the 3.5khz band > segment > > > for AM. Mr. > > > > Rotolo confirms that this exception has raised quite a ruckus > in > > > the digital > > > > community. It begs the question, if an exception is created > for AM > > > why not > > > > an exception for 25khz data..." > > > > > > > > "...Perhaps the petition shows undue favoritism for AM phone. > > > Instead of > > > > that, a better way would be a 10kHz bandwidth overlay in parts > of > > > larger HF > > > > ham bands at REDUCED AVERAGE POWER LEVEL(emphasis mine) This > would > > > allow AM > > > > but not preclude other transmission methods with similar > bandwidth > > > occupancy > > > > effects. Obviously, the ARRL has bowed to tradition in these > areas > > > in their > > > > efforts to accommodate the status quo." > > > > > > > > http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=108389 > > > > > > > > Don k4kyv
