Brian Carling wrote:
On 23 Feb 2006 at 9:47, UVCM INC wrote:
Ron,
I have experience in politics and running companies, would like to chat with
you about legal action, sometimes its the only way. or maybe their are other
ways if the ARRL would listen to us and modify there position.
Brad KB7FQR
I just downloaded it at work today and got through the first page or
so. even then I was stunned at what the comments said.
If I recollect correctly, the ARRL states that the excellant turnout
of comments shows how well the ARRL publicized their comments, and
that the excellant turnout of com
On 23 Feb 2006 at 9:47, UVCM INC wrote:
> Ron,
> I have experience in politics and running companies, would like to chat with
> you about legal action, sometimes its the only way. or maybe their are other
> ways if the ARRL would listen to us and modify there position.
> Brad KB7FQR
Brad don't ho
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 9:44 AM
To: Discussion of AM Radio; Discussion of AM Radio
Cc: Mike DORROUGH
Subject: RE: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally
Thanks Brad
I agree, the document is very condesending and clealy written to
Thanks Brad
I agree, the document is very condesending and clealy written to set the stage
for a change without inciting another barrage of comments.
The comment about how the "ARRL has found a middle ground" is an insult to
anyone with a valid Amatuer Radio License and can think for thems
I especially like the part that says:
"The response illustrates that ARRL's extensive publicity surrounding
its proposal since the concept was first developed in 2002 was
successful. ARRL has repeatedly both ARRL members and non-members of
the concept <> emission mode. It has repeatedly as
ERATORS.
Thanks
Brad KB7FQR
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:04 AM
To: Discussion of AM Radio
Subject: Re: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally
I agree with Brad. As an officer
Ron,
thanks for the input, this is what i mean, T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:04 AM
To: Discussion of AM Radio
Subject: Re: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally
I
I agree with Brad. As an officer of a public company I have many dealings with
the SEC and have learned to spot and understand "Gov-Speak" in documents.
What "I" read in that document was essentially an ominous set of pre
suppositions and condesending characturizations along with some nice dog
Paul,
we need to work through this there is some dangerous language in the ARRL's
comments
Brad KB7FQR
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of VJB
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:09 AM
To: amradio@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [AMRadio] League Bandwidt
10 matches
Mail list logo
