Re: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally

2006-02-23 Thread w6om
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 doggie

RE: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally

2006-02-23 Thread UVCM INC
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

RE: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally

2006-02-23 Thread UVCM INC
-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 of a public company I

Re: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally

2006-02-23 Thread Todd, KA1KAQ
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

RE: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally

2006-02-23 Thread w6om
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

RE: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally

2006-02-23 Thread UVCM INC
:[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

RE: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally

2006-02-23 Thread Brian Carling
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 hold

Re: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally

2006-02-23 Thread Mark K3MSB
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