Hello everyone!
Thanks for the comments on IC-736
I really did not want to buy it the Radio Shack in Moscow asked
if i'd like to sell it to someone? But i prefer other radio personally>
Any way in 3 hours have to be at the Sheremet'evo II to leave to
Palermo and see you all from Lampedusa on 40 meters. Hope that my
two phased verticals with all the cables etc. are not looking like
a bomb or drugs for the castoms at the Airport.
161!Andy
UA3DPX, AC6WE
>From radio@UDel.Edu (Robert Penneys) Thu Nov 14 12:00:36 1996
From: radio@UDel.Edu (Robert Penneys) (Robert Penneys)
Subject: SS ck, club call??
Message-ID: <199611141200.HAA23975@copland.udel.edu>
In the spirit of the now threads that will not die...
NY3C wants to use the N.E.R.D.S. new club call, W3TT, on the Sweepstakes.
Does he give the check year for his own license, or the club's?
I figure the latter.
Tnx, Bob
>From ki8w@netonecom.net (Barry Martz) Thu Nov 14 13:11:21 1996
From: ki8w@netonecom.net (Barry Martz) (Barry Martz)
Subject: Callsign Litigation?!!?
Message-ID: <199611141216.HAA24873@netone.netonecom.net>
-- [ From: Barry Martz * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --
Come on, litigation over a callsign? Is it really that important? This
gives amateur radio a real good name, fighting over a call.
This is the FCC's baby. If they put out a memo saying "We will issue vanity
calls as we please, anyway we please", I guess they can.
I'm not a Government backer by any means, but to fight so hard about a
callsign? Seems like some priorities are out of place somewhere.
I sent in for a new call. If I get it, I get it. If I don't I don't. No
Biggie. It wouldn't surprise me if the FCC said FORGET IT!
Anyway, after so many VANITY listings, that's my first and last on the
subject.
73 de KI8W
>From aa9ax@iglou.com (Steven Sample) Thu Nov 14 12:28:14 1996
From: aa9ax@iglou.com (Steven Sample) (Steven Sample)
Subject:
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961114072133.13820B-100000@iglou1>
> Enough already. I received my fourth choice after Fedexing my
> application to Pittsburgh. I was almost the last call issued on the
> list. Something must have been random. Although the whole process
> could have been handled in a better fashion (it's always easier to
> second guess), I'm happy I got a 1x2 call and certainly wouldn't want
> to take a chance a second time around, nor would I want to wait
> another month, six months, or a year until the FCC tries again, and
> maybe still doesn't' produce to everyone's satisfaction. I, along
> with many others have ordered new QSLs, updated email addresses,
> packet cluster signon's, etc. I'm satisfied with what I received,
> and tired of the bickering. Barring somebody proving outright fraud
> during the process, or with respect to specific call signs (and then
> I guess those call signs should be revoked and thrown back in to the
> pot), who knows where you would end up if you threw your call sign
> back in to the pot and tried again.
>
> This is not meant to flame anyone, but the few individuals who had to
> have X1XX, or X1XY, and want to litigate to get it, can sure mess the
> process up for the vast majority of us who are more than satisfied
> that we got one of our choices.
>
> Beryl
>
Amen. If the FCC gets embroiled in this thing from a legal standpoint,
you may see NO more calls (vanity or otherwise) issued for AGES! In all
walks of life we have been taught to expect deceit (especially from the
government), but we can't stop the world each time we detect some. In
that instance, the world would never restart. Some of us have had a lot
bigger problem from the government's deceit than this vanity callsign
program, and as much as it irks us-there is little that can be done. Many
fortunes have been lost trying to right wrongs and stand up for what is
right against the government. It's O.K. to squeel, but don't think you
are going to win the big one against uncle Sam except possibly one in ten
thousand. That makes our odds rather puny.
Steve / N9FD (Ex-AA9AX) (Third choice of four submitted, and had it
sitting at Mellon bank Saturday morning-but not complaining)
|