Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+RM\-11708\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+RM\-11708\s*$/: 65 ]

Total 65 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: James Douglass <ham@odsgc.net>; Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 14:53:38 -0600; My modest comment may be found here. http://tinyurl.com/RM-11708 73, Jim ACŘE -- I like to keep fit by jumping to conclusions, exercising my rights and climbing steep learning curves. _______________; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-12/msg00167.html (6,256 bytes)
2. [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: Jim AC0E <ham@odsgc.net>; Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 14:55:17 -0600; Much has been said about this RM. A few, in my view, simple facts are evident to me. 1. There has been almost zero widespread desire for this petition. 2. The driving force behind this petition is a; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-01/msg00216.html (7,658 bytes)
3. [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: "Ron Kolarik" <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>; Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 18:02:51 -0600; The new ARRL letter arrived today and this is what I sent to my division director. Hi Cliff, Sorry to bug you again but this thing won't go away. In todays ARRL letter was an explanation concerning R; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-01/msg00217.html (7,869 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: "Don Hill AA5AU" <aa5au@bellsouth.net>; Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 19:06:58 -0600; I have written my director as well telling him my disappointment with the way the ARRL has handled this whole ordeal, especially the way they have been dismissive of us who oppose RM-11708. I would s; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-01/msg00220.html (8,977 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 20:20:08 -0500; I have written my [new] director requesting that he introduce a resolution to *withdraw* RM-11708 at the January Board Meeting and require a *recorded vote*. Perhaps some of the other Directors can b; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-01/msg00221.html (10,054 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: "Anthony W. DePrato" <wa4jqs@mikrotec.com>; Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:19:25 -0500; I have written my director as well Don telling him my disappointment with the way the ARRL has handled this whole ordeal, especially the way they have been dismissive of us who oppose RM-11708. When; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-01/msg00225.html (8,670 bytes)
7. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: "Ron Kolarik" <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>; Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 21:11:28 -0600; Just remember if you're entertaining thoughts of dropping your ARRL membership over this mess, you can't change the organization from the outside. Non-members are not a concern to them. Ron K0IDT sad; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-01/msg00227.html (8,422 bytes)
8. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>; Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 19:31:02 -0800; I used to think that Life Membership was a sweet deal. I no longer recommend ARRL Life Membership to anyone who is contemplating it. 73 Chen, W7AY _______________________________________________ RTTY; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-01/msg00228.html (7,633 bytes)
9. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: 110268293250g <110268293250g@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:58:07 -0600; You can drop the "non-" part of that statement. I found that out myself many times, over the past half decade. Does anyone know how long it takes, for the FCC to act on things like this? There are a; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-01/msg00229.html (8,993 bytes)
10. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: "Tom - ke1jf" <ke1jf@verizon.net>; Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 05:17:43 -0500; I am also in the process of writing my director and this is the time of the year when I get renewal notices in the mail every week reminding me that they don't want me to miss an issue of QST so I sh; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-01/msg00231.html (11,067 bytes)
11. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: john <w8wej@citynet.net>; Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:07:20 +0000; On 1/10/2014 03:11, Ron Kolarik wrote: . Non-members are not a concern to them. APPARRENTLY MEMBERS DO NOT APPEAR TO BE A CONCERN TO THEM EITHER. John w8wej, and yes , I quit in 68 out of disgust and; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-01/msg00234.html (9,196 bytes)
12. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: "W4GKM" <w4gkm@citlink.net>; Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:22:57 -0600; Me too Tony! I just had a big run with Dave Sumner. I have written my director as well Don telling him my disappointment with the way the ARRL has handled this whole ordeal, especially the way they h; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-01/msg00236.html (9,630 bytes)
13. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: "Ron Kolarik" <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>; Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:07:48 -0600; A couple of fresh comments from K0SM and WA3VJB if you haven't checked today. Ron K0IDT -- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-01/msg00246.html (7,748 bytes)
14. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 15:15:43 -0400; Yesterday, I sent the following e-mail to members of the ARRL Executive Committee and my director. I urge anyone interested in/concerned about the future of amateur radio to contact their director an; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-05/msg00018.html (13,655 bytes)
15. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: "Ron Kolarik" <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>; Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 19:34:56 -0500; Joe one thing missing from your suggestion is 97.221(c). Eliminate that and the automatic/semi-automatic stations would have to learn to share and spread vertically. The IARU Region 2 band plan even; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-05/msg00020.html (14,854 bytes)
16. [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: "Ron Kolarik" <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>; Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 21:00:45 -0500; I've been debating whether or not to post this to the list but since I've had no answer to my original question, I did get a reply but no answer on how to proceed with a formal complaint, here's what; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00090.html (14,765 bytes)
17. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2014 23:46:19 -0400; I've been debating whether or not to post this to the list but since I've had no answer to my original question, I did get a reply but no answer on how to proceed with a formal complaint, File it wit; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00091.html (17,494 bytes)
18. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: Tom Osborne <w7why@frontier.com>; Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2014 21:51:21 -0700; Hi Joe I think the FCC just don't give a crap any more. I see in QST where they once in a while punish someone for interference, but it is always some repeater somewhere that is being interfered with; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00092.html (9,367 bytes)
19. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 00:57:54 -0400; Has anyone ever sent the FCC recordings with calls, names and times? It generally takes a series of specific complaints to the Enforcement Bureau to get the ball rolling ... the more complains with; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00093.html (10,337 bytes)
20. Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 (score: 1): Author: Terry <ab5k@hotmail.com>; Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 08:28:14 -0500; Ron, This is a great example of the deterioration of our amateur bands all directly traceable to ARRL actions. The www.SaveRtty.com team is working on a new chapter that will be released soon that co; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-06/msg00094.html (16,665 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]