In message <u1932j$1100i$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
https://www.essexham.co.uk/ofcom-hints-at-licence-changes.html
Have you been goading ?
We could do with those people on here, it would liven the place up a bit.
I'm with Ofcom , The exam for all could be reduced to a bare minimum.
Brianas long as they have a pulse and can make their mark x
In message <u1932j$1100i$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes >https://www.essexham.co.uk/ofcom-hints-at-licence-changes.html
Have you been goading ?
We could do with those people on here, it would liven the place up a
bit.
I'm with Ofcom , The exam for all could be reduced to a bare minimum.
as long as they have a pulse and can make their mark x
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:45:43 +0100
"jim.gm4dhj" <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
as long as they have a pulse and can make their mark x
You have me thinking of Paul Whitehouse and his character Mr Dead.
On 13/04/2023 18:36, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:45:43 +0100never seen that sorry.....BTW watch out they have rumbled we are
"jim.gm4dhj" <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
as long as they have a pulse and can make their mark xYou have me thinking of Paul Whitehouse and his character Mr Dead.
talking about them up here....amazing they have even heard of
usnet....tee hee
On 13/04/2023 18:36, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:45:43 +0100
"jim.gm4dhj" <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
as long as they have a pulse and can make their mark x
You have me thinking of Paul Whitehouse and his character Mr Dead.
never seen that sorry
.....BTW watch out they have rumbled we are
talking about them up here....amazing they have even heard of
usnet....tee hee
In message <u19q3s$14htj$2@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 13/04/2023 18:36, Brian Morrison wrote:[...]
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:45:43 +0100
"jim.gm4dhj" <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
You have me thinking of Paul Whitehouse and his character Mr Dead.never seen that sorry.....BTW watch out they have rumbled we are
talking about them up here....amazing they have even heard of
usnet....tee hee
It's an interesting load of comments. I agree with some (even some of
what Jim says!), but my heart sinks when I read a lot of them.
Some of the present licence requirements are far from perfect
(especially after the changes of a couple of years ago), but the
rumours about what the latest might be rather smells of 'change for
change's sake'.
In message <u19q3s$14htj$2@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writesindeed rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic comes to mind
On 13/04/2023 18:36, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:45:43 +0100never seen that sorry.....BTW watch out they have rumbled we are
"jim.gm4dhj" <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
as long as they have a pulse and can make their mark x You have me thinking of Paul Whitehouse and his character Mr Dead.
talking about them up here....amazing they have even heard of
usnet....tee hee
It's an interesting load of comments. I agree with some (even some of
what Jim says!), but my heart sinks when I read a lot of them.
Some of the present licence requirements are far from perfect
(especially after the changes of a couple of years ago), but the rumours about what the latest might be rather smells of 'change for change's sake'.
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 22:39:37 +0100
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <u19q3s$14htj$2@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 13/04/2023 18:36, Brian Morrison wrote:[...]
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:45:43 +0100
"jim.gm4dhj" <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
You have me thinking of Paul Whitehouse and his character Mr Dead.never seen that sorry.....BTW watch out they have rumbled we are
talking about them up here....amazing they have even heard of
usnet....tee hee
It's an interesting load of comments. I agree with some (even some of
what Jim says!), but my heart sinks when I read a lot of them.
Some of the present licence requirements are far from perfect
(especially after the changes of a couple of years ago), but the
rumours about what the latest might be rather smells of 'change for
change's sake'.
Looking at the discussion, it looks exactly the same as pretty much
every discussion I've ever seen on these topics. A combination of tired
old lags who have seen most of it before, young (and not so young) peeps
who want everything for nothing and a third group of people who seem to
think it's their job to tell everyone else what to think. I have no idea whether the discussion and consultation will achieve anything, and I
can't be sure that I know whether they need to. Wonderful isn't it?
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 21:53:15 +0100
"jim.gm4dhj" <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 13/04/2023 18:36, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:45:43 +0100never seen that sorry
"jim.gm4dhj" <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
as long as they have a pulse and can make their mark x
You have me thinking of Paul Whitehouse and his character Mr Dead.
Essentially it's a voiceover from Paul with an immobile, clearly dead
person in a coffin propped up so that he could see everything around
him if only he were alive.
.....BTW watch out they have rumbled we are
talking about them up here....amazing they have even heard of
usnet....tee hee
Fun fun fun, until daddy took the T-bird away.
Some of the present licence requirements are far from perfect
(especially after the changes of a couple of years ago), but the
rumours about what the latest might be rather smells of 'change for
change's sake'.
Looking at the discussion, it looks exactly the same as pretty much
every discussion I've ever seen on these topics. A combination of tired
old lags who have seen most of it before, young (and not so young) peeps
who want everything for nothing and a third group of people who seem to
think it's their job to tell everyone else what to think. I have no idea whether the discussion and consultation will achieve anything, and I
can't be sure that I know whether they need to. Wonderful isn't it?
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 22:39:37 +0100
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <u19q3s$14htj$2@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 13/04/2023 18:36, Brian Morrison wrote:[...]
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:45:43 +0100
"jim.gm4dhj" <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
You have me thinking of Paul Whitehouse and his character Mr Dead.never seen that sorry.....BTW watch out they have rumbled we are
talking about them up here....amazing they have even heard of
usnet....tee hee
It's an interesting load of comments. I agree with some (even some of
what Jim says!), but my heart sinks when I read a lot of them.
Some of the present licence requirements are far from perfect
(especially after the changes of a couple of years ago), but the
rumours about what the latest might be rather smells of 'change for
change's sake'.
Looking at the discussion, it looks exactly the same as pretty much
every discussion I've ever seen on these topics. A combination of tired
old lags who have seen most of it before, young (and not so young) peeps
who want everything for nothing and a third group of people who seem to
think it's their job to tell everyone else what to think. I have no idea >whether the discussion and consultation will achieve anything, and I
can't be sure that I know whether they need to. Wonderful isn't it?
On 14/04/2023 10:49, Ian Jackson wrote:ha ha get tore in ma man minted
In message <20230413233917.39222655@deangelis.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian
Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk> writes
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 22:39:37 +0100I'm certainly in Group 1 - and, if I'm perfectly honest, to some
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <u19q3s$14htj$2@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 13/04/2023 18:36, Brian Morrison wrote:Â [...]
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:45:43 +0100
"jim.gm4dhj" <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
 You have me thinking of Paul Whitehouse and his character Mr Dead. >>>> >>never seen that sorry.....BTW watch out they have rumbled we are
talking about them up here....amazing they have even heard of
usnet....tee hee
It's an interesting load of comments. I agree with some (even some of
what Jim says!), but my heart sinks when I read a lot of them.
Some of the present licence requirements are far from perfect
(especially after the changes of a couple of years ago), but the
rumours about what the latest might be rather smells of 'change for
change's sake'.
Looking at the discussion, it looks exactly the same as pretty much
every discussion I've ever seen on these topics. A combination of tired
old lags who have seen most of it before, young (and not so young) peeps >>> who want everything for nothing and a third group of people who seem to
think it's their job to tell everyone else what to think. I have no idea >>> whether the discussion and consultation will achieve anything, and I
can't be sure that I know whether they need to. Wonderful isn't it?
extent also in Group 3!
My IP address (behind a VPN) is blocked from posting on Essexspam. I had hoped to pour some high octane petrol onto the fires Jim was stoking.
Now to see if any of my neighbours have weak Wifi passwords....
In message <20230413233917.39222655@deangelis.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian
Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk> writes
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 22:39:37 +0100I'm certainly in Group 1 - and, if I'm perfectly honest, to some extent
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <u19q3s$14htj$2@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 13/04/2023 18:36, Brian Morrison wrote:Â [...]
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:45:43 +0100
"jim.gm4dhj" <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
 You have me thinking of Paul Whitehouse and his character Mr Dead.never seen that sorry.....BTW watch out they have rumbled we are
talking about them up here....amazing they have even heard of
usnet....tee hee
It's an interesting load of comments. I agree with some (even some of
what Jim says!), but my heart sinks when I read a lot of them.
Some of the present licence requirements are far from perfect
(especially after the changes of a couple of years ago), but the
rumours about what the latest might be rather smells of 'change for
change's sake'.
Looking at the discussion, it looks exactly the same as pretty much
every discussion I've ever seen on these topics. A combination of tired
old lags who have seen most of it before, young (and not so young) peeps
who want everything for nothing and a third group of people who seem to
think it's their job to tell everyone else what to think. I have no idea
whether the discussion and consultation will achieve anything, and I
can't be sure that I know whether they need to. Wonderful isn't it?
also in Group 3!
Some of the present licence requirements are far from perfect
(especially after the changes of a couple of years ago), but the
rumours about what the latest might be rather smells of 'change for
change's sake'.
Looking at the discussion, it looks exactly the same as pretty much
every discussion I've ever seen on these topics. A combination of
tired old lags who have seen most of it before, young (and not so
young) peeps who want everything for nothing and a third group of
people who seem to think it's their job to tell everyone else what
to think. I have no idea whether the discussion and consultation
will achieve anything, and I can't be sure that I know whether they
need to. Wonderful isn't it?
The problem is that virtually no one can be bothered to learn, or is interested in "self training in radio communications" and "technical investigations" any more, they just want to buy equipment and
operate. That is the impasse.
If all we want is multi-band CB then go down that path, but
eventually we will lose the huge privilege of being able to build and
operate our own equipment, it has happened in some countries already.
On 13/04/2023 15:20, jim.gm4dhj wrote:
https://www.essexham.co.uk/ofcom-hints-at-licence-changes.html
So who is Tyrbiter then ? ....
On 14/04/2023 10:49, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <20230413233917.39222655@deangelis.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian
Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk> writes
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 22:39:37 +0100I'm certainly in Group 1 - and, if I'm perfectly honest, to some extent
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <u19q3s$14htj$2@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 13/04/2023 18:36, Brian Morrison wrote:[...]
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:45:43 +0100
"jim.gm4dhj" <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
You have me thinking of Paul Whitehouse and his character Mr Dead. >>>>>>never seen that sorry.....BTW watch out they have rumbled we are
talking about them up here....amazing they have even heard of
usnet....tee hee
It's an interesting load of comments. I agree with some (even some of
what Jim says!), but my heart sinks when I read a lot of them.
Some of the present licence requirements are far from perfect
(especially after the changes of a couple of years ago), but the
rumours about what the latest might be rather smells of 'change for
change's sake'.
Looking at the discussion, it looks exactly the same as pretty much
every discussion I've ever seen on these topics. A combination of tired
old lags who have seen most of it before, young (and not so young) peeps >>> who want everything for nothing and a third group of people who seem to
think it's their job to tell everyone else what to think. I have no idea >>> whether the discussion and consultation will achieve anything, and I
can't be sure that I know whether they need to. Wonderful isn't it?
also in Group 3!
My IP address (behind a VPN) is blocked from posting on Essexspam. I had hoped to pour some high octane petrol onto the fires Jim was stoking.
Now to see if any of my neighbours have weak Wifi passwords....
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something??
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:58:56 +0100
"jim.gm4dhj" <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 13/04/2023 15:20, jim.gm4dhj wrote:
https://www.essexham.co.uk/ofcom-hints-at-licence-changes.html
So who is Tyrbiter then ? ....
Not too difficult to determine really.
On 14/04/2023 19:00, Roger Hayter wrote:Oh a real callsign then...
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something??
I was using Spike's.
Anyway, fuck off Hayter.
In message <u1cicd$1mqgb$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 14/04/2023 19:07, mm0fmf wrote:
On 14/04/2023 19:00, Roger Hayter wrote:Oh a real callsign then...
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something?? I was using Spike's.
 Anyway, fuck off Hayter.
Not many genuine G2 +3 left.
Brian GM6QE
On 14/04/2023 19:07, mm0fmf wrote:
On 14/04/2023 19:00, Roger Hayter wrote:Oh a real callsign then...
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something??I was using Spike's.
Anyway, fuck off Hayter.
In message <u1cicd$1mqgb$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 14/04/2023 19:07, mm0fmf wrote:
On 14/04/2023 19:00, Roger Hayter wrote:Oh a real callsign then...
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something?? I was using Spike's.
 Anyway, fuck off Hayter.
Not many genuine G2 +3 left.
Brian GM6QE
On 14/04/2023 19:00, Roger Hayter wrote:tourettes?
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something??
I was using Spike's.
Anyway, fuck off Hayter.
On 15/04/2023 08:57, brian wrote:
In message <u1cicd$1mqgb$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj >><kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writesall fakers pretending to be what they are not
On 14/04/2023 19:07, mm0fmf wrote:Not many genuine G2 +3 left.
On 14/04/2023 19:00, Roger Hayter wrote:Oh a real callsign then...
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something??I was using Spike's.
Anyway, fuck off Hayter.
Brian GM6QE
all fakers pretending to be what they are not
The question of what to do with SK or not-previously-issued callsigns
is a difficult one.
I'm guess that most UK amateurs would prefer to be given a
traditional 'G' prefix, and it would be unfair on future generations
to be denied the opportunity to have one. This obviously entails the recycling (some might say 'grave-robbing') of pre-loved callsigns,
but it does seem a little incongruous that brand new licensees are
now rubbing shoulders genuine old-timers.
Ideally, what would happen
would be that no series of apparently old-timer callsigns would be
issued before all the original holders had expired, and that there
had been a respectable gap before any of that series was re-issued.
That way it would be obvious which callsigns were newbies, and those
who were not.
On the other hand, I'm sure that there are those who say
"Who cares?"
"#You must remember this - a kiss is just a kiss, a callsign is just
a callsign"#."
On 14/04/2023 19:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something??
I was using Spike's.
Anyway, fuck off Hayter.
On 14/04/2023 19:07, mm0fmf wrote:
On 14/04/2023 19:00, Roger Hayter wrote:tourettes?
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something??
I was using Spike's.
Anyway, fuck off Hayter.
In message <u1dma5$1v4a1$2@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 15/04/2023 08:57, brian wrote:
In message <u1cicd$1mqgb$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhjall fakers pretending to be what they are not
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 14/04/2023 19:07, mm0fmf wrote:Â Not many genuine G2 +3 left.
On 14/04/2023 19:00, Roger Hayter wrote:Oh a real callsign then...
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something?? I was using Spike's.
 Anyway, fuck off Hayter.
 Brian GM6QE
The question of what to do with SK or not-previously-issued callsigns is
a difficult one.
On 15/04/2023 16:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <u1dma5$1v4a1$2@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj >><kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 15/04/2023 08:57, brian wrote:The question of what to do with SK or not-previously-issued
In message <u1cicd$1mqgb$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj >>>><kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writesall fakers pretending to be what they are not
On 14/04/2023 19:07, mm0fmf wrote:Not many genuine G2 +3 left.
On 14/04/2023 19:00, Roger Hayter wrote:Oh a real callsign then...
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something??I was using Spike's.
Anyway, fuck off Hayter.
Brian GM6QE
callsigns is a difficult one.
Its trivial. You leave them unallocated for a few years after the
holder dies or returns it. Once it's been fallow for some time you
allow it to be reissued. Just like what happens in many other parts of
the world.
It's essentially what is happening now with all kinds of newly licenced >squeakies getting what appear to be 50 year old calls.
I know of a guy who has worked through the incentive licencing to full
and the only full call available with his initials was a very early
G4+3. He took that and then decided if he has an early G4 he'd better
learn Morse. He's now past 15wpm and uses Morse on air as he improves
his speed.
That's exactly what the naysayers on here want. He's progressed along
the licence path and uses Morse on air. But that early G4 call really
grates with them though as they can't tell if he's new and therefore
not as good as they are.
In message <u1fctb$27glg$1@dont-email.me>, mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> writes
On 15/04/2023 16:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <u1dma5$1v4a1$2@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 15/04/2023 08:57, brian wrote:Â The question of what to do with SK or not-previously-issued
In message <u1cicd$1mqgb$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhjall fakers pretending to be what they are not
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 14/04/2023 19:07, mm0fmf wrote:Â Not many genuine G2 +3 left.
On 14/04/2023 19:00, Roger Hayter wrote:Oh a real callsign then...
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something?? I was using Spike's.
 Anyway, fuck off Hayter.
 Brian GM6QE
callsigns is a difficult one.
Its trivial. You leave them unallocated for a few years after the
holder dies or returns it. Once it's been fallow for some time you
allow it to be reissued. Just like what happens in many other parts of
the world.
It's essentially what is happening now with all kinds of newly
licenced squeakies getting what appear to be 50 year old calls.
I know of a guy who has worked through the incentive licencing to full
and the only full call available with his initials was a very early
G4+3. He took that and then decided if he has an early G4 he'd better
learn Morse. He's now past 15wpm and uses Morse on air as he improves
his speed.
That's exactly what the naysayers on here want. He's progressed along
the licence path and uses Morse on air. But that early G4 call really
grates with them though as they can't tell if he's new and therefore
not as good as they are.
The fact that one new chap appears to have been taken over by the spirit
of a deceased (or otherwise lapsed) G4+3 does not justify the practice
of re-issuing old callsigns after only a few years (assuming, of course,
that any justification is felt necessary). On the other hand, one can
argue that we should not have any interest in casually distinguishing
between newcomers and old-timers simply by their callsigns.
On 15/04/2023 16:48, Ian Jackson wrote:good man well done ....
In message <u1dma5$1v4a1$2@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 15/04/2023 08:57, brian wrote:
In message <u1cicd$1mqgb$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhjall fakers pretending to be what they are not
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 14/04/2023 19:07, mm0fmf wrote:Â Not many genuine G2 +3 left.
On 14/04/2023 19:00, Roger Hayter wrote:Oh a real callsign then...
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something?? I was using Spike's.
 Anyway, fuck off Hayter.
 Brian GM6QE
The question of what to do with SK or not-previously-issued callsigns
is a difficult one.
Its trivial. You leave them unallocated for a few years after the holder
dies or returns it. Once it's been fallow for some time you allow it to
be reissued. Just like what happens in many other parts of the world.
It's essentially what is happening now with all kinds of newly licenced squeakies getting what appear to be 50 year old calls.
I know of a guy who has worked through the incentive licencing to full
and the only full call available with his initials was a very early
G4+3. He took that and then decided if he has an early G4 he'd better
learn Morse. He's now past 15wpm and uses Morse on air as he improves
his speed.
That's exactly what the naysayers on here want. He's progressed along
the licence path and uses Morse on air. But that early G4 call really
grates with them though as they can't tell if he's new and therefore not
as good as they are.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:45:08 +0100, "jim.gm4dhj"thought that
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 14/04/2023 19:07, mm0fmf wrote:
On 14/04/2023 19:00, Roger Hayter wrote:tourettes?
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something??
I was using Spike's.
Anyway, fuck off Hayter.
just brain dead.
In message <u1fctb$27glg$1@dont-email.me>, mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> writes
On 15/04/2023 16:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <u1dma5$1v4a1$2@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 15/04/2023 08:57, brian wrote:Â The question of what to do with SK or not-previously-issued
In message <u1cicd$1mqgb$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhjall fakers pretending to be what they are not
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 14/04/2023 19:07, mm0fmf wrote:Â Not many genuine G2 +3 left.
On 14/04/2023 19:00, Roger Hayter wrote:Oh a real callsign then...
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something?? I was using Spike's.
 Anyway, fuck off Hayter.
 Brian GM6QE
callsigns is a difficult one.
Its trivial. You leave them unallocated for a few years after the
holder dies or returns it. Once it's been fallow for some time you
allow it to be reissued. Just like what happens in many other parts of
the world.
It's essentially what is happening now with all kinds of newly
licenced squeakies getting what appear to be 50 year old calls.
I know of a guy who has worked through the incentive licencing to full
and the only full call available with his initials was a very early
G4+3. He took that and then decided if he has an early G4 he'd better
learn Morse. He's now past 15wpm and uses Morse on air as he improves
his speed.
That's exactly what the naysayers on here want. He's progressed along
the licence path and uses Morse on air. But that early G4 call really
grates with them though as they can't tell if he's new and therefore
not as good as they are.
The fact that one new chap appears to have been taken over by the spirit
of a deceased (or otherwise lapsed) G4+3 does not justify the practice
of re-issuing old callsigns after only a few years (assuming, of course,
that any justification is felt necessary). On the other hand, one can
argue that we should not have any interest in casually distinguishing
between newcomers and old-timers simply by their callsigns.
On 16/04/2023 08:25, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <u1fctb$27glg$1@dont-email.me>, mm0fmf <none@invalid.com>
writes
On 15/04/2023 16:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <u1dma5$1v4a1$2@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 15/04/2023 08:57, brian wrote:Â The question of what to do with SK or not-previously-issued
In message <u1cicd$1mqgb$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhjall fakers pretending to be what they are not
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 14/04/2023 19:07, mm0fmf wrote:Â Not many genuine G2 +3 left.
On 14/04/2023 19:00, Roger Hayter wrote:Oh a real callsign then...
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something?? I was using Spike's.
 Anyway, fuck off Hayter.
 Brian GM6QE
callsigns is a difficult one.
Its trivial. You leave them unallocated for a few years after the
holder dies or returns it. Once it's been fallow for some time you
allow it to be reissued. Just like what happens in many other parts
of the world.
It's essentially what is happening now with all kinds of newly
licenced squeakies getting what appear to be 50 year old calls.
I know of a guy who has worked through the incentive licencing to
full and the only full call available with his initials was a very
early G4+3. He took that and then decided if he has an early G4 he'd
better learn Morse. He's now past 15wpm and uses Morse on air as he
improves his speed.
That's exactly what the naysayers on here want. He's progressed along
the licence path and uses Morse on air. But that early G4 call really
grates with them though as they can't tell if he's new and therefore
not as good as they are.
The fact that one new chap appears to have been taken over by the
spirit of a deceased (or otherwise lapsed) G4+3 does not justify the
practice of re-issuing old callsigns after only a few years (assuming,
of course, that any justification is felt necessary). On the other
hand, one can argue that we should not have any interest in casually
distinguishing between newcomers and old-timers simply by their
callsigns.
In the US there's a waiting list for short calls but a finite waiting
period after the previous holder expires (2 years + 1 day). And they're
now charging $35 to issue/renew (10 year validity period). Let's
re-instate the licence fee here, that should free up a few inactive callsigns.
On 15/04/2023 08:57, brian wrote:
In message <u1cicd$1mqgb$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 14/04/2023 19:07, mm0fmf wrote:
On 14/04/2023 19:00, Roger Hayter wrote:Oh a real callsign then...
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something?? I was using Spike's.
 Anyway, fuck off Hayter.
Not many genuine G2 +3 left.
Brian GM6QEall fakers pretending to be what they are not
In message <u1fctb$27glg$1@dont-email.me>, mm0fmf <none@invalid.com>
writes
On 15/04/2023 16:48, Ian Jackson wrote:[...]
In message <u1dma5$1v4a1$2@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj >><kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
The question of what to do with SK or not-previously-issued
callsigns is a difficult one.
Its trivial. You leave them unallocated for a few years after the
holder dies or returns it. Once it's been fallow for some time you
allow it to be reissued. Just like what happens in many other parts
of the world.
It's essentially what is happening now with all kinds of newly
licenced squeakies getting what appear to be 50 year old calls.
I know of a guy who has worked through the incentive licencing to
full and the only full call available with his initials was a very
early G4+3. He took that and then decided if he has an early G4 he'd
better learn Morse. He's now past 15wpm and uses Morse on air as he >improves his speed.
That's exactly what the naysayers on here want. He's progressed
along the licence path and uses Morse on air. But that early G4 call
really grates with them though as they can't tell if he's new and
therefore not as good as they are.
The fact that one new chap appears to have been taken over by the
spirit of a deceased (or otherwise lapsed) G4+3 does not justify the
practice of re-issuing old callsigns after only a few years
(assuming, of course, that any justification is felt necessary). On
the other hand, one can argue that we should not have any interest in casually distinguishing between newcomers and old-timers simply by
their callsigns.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:12:52 +0100
"jim.gm4dhj" <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 15/04/2023 08:57, brian wrote:
In message <u1cicd$1mqgb$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhjall fakers pretending to be what they are not
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 14/04/2023 19:07, mm0fmf wrote:
On 14/04/2023 19:00, Roger Hayter wrote:Oh a real callsign then...
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something?? I was using Spike's.
 Anyway, fuck off Hayter.
Not many genuine G2 +3 left.
Brian GM6QE
Quite. With older calls like GM4DHJ, G8OSN, G8DXY you know what to
expect from the holder. But if people can take on any old call, who
knows what sort of arsehole you could end up talking to.
Also, I think that all names should be unique; can you imagine the
chaos that could be caused by there being more than one James Stewart in Glasgow, for example. Madness!
In message <u1932j$1100i$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
https://www.essexham.co.uk/ofcom-hints-at-licence-changes.html
Have you been goading ?
We could do with those people on here, it would liven the place up a
bit.
I'm with Ofcom , The exam for all could be reduced to a bare minimum.
Brian
brian <nospam@b-howie.co.uk> wrote:
In message <u1932j$1100i$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
https://www.essexham.co.uk/ofcom-hints-at-licence-changes.html
Have you been goading ?
We could do with those people on here, it would liven the place up a
bit.
I'm with Ofcom , The exam for all could be reduced to a bare minimum.
Brian
The problem seems to be those who can’t pass the Advanced exam.
I wonder how many have claimed they have and been caught out?
Funny how people claim it is easier than the old RAE - even those who claim to have BTechs, HND/C , better than a degrees, but still can’t pass it.
Makes me smile every time the topic comes up.
😂
On 16/04/2023 18:33, Bernie wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:12:52 +0100
"jim.gm4dhj" <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 15/04/2023 08:57, brian wrote:
In message <u1cicd$1mqgb$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhjall fakers pretending to be what they are not
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 14/04/2023 19:07, mm0fmf wrote:
On 14/04/2023 19:00, Roger Hayter wrote:Oh a real callsign then...
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something?? I was using Spike's.
 Anyway, fuck off Hayter.
Not many genuine G2 +3 left.
Brian GM6QE
Quite. With older calls like GM4DHJ, G8OSN, G8DXY you know what to
expect from the holder. But if people can take on any old call, who
knows what sort of arsehole you could end up talking to.
indeed
Also, I think that all names should be unique; can you imagine the
chaos that could be caused by there being more than one James
Stewart in Glasgow, for example. Madness!
now you are being silly Burnie ....
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 11:24:43 +0100
"jim.gm4dhj" <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2023 18:33, Bernie wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:12:52 +0100
"jim.gm4dhj" <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 15/04/2023 08:57, brian wrote:
In message <u1cicd$1mqgb$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhjall fakers pretending to be what they are not
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 14/04/2023 19:07, mm0fmf wrote:
On 14/04/2023 19:00, Roger Hayter wrote:Oh a real callsign then...
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something?? I was using Spike's.
 Anyway, fuck off Hayter.
Not many genuine G2 +3 left.
Brian GM6QE
Quite. With older calls like GM4DHJ, G8OSN, G8DXY you know what to
expect from the holder. But if people can take on any old call, who
knows what sort of arsehole you could end up talking to.
indeed
totly
Why? Anyone who knows you would know instantly if they were meeting a different James Stewart, and those who don't know you wouldn't give anow you are being silly Burnie ....
Also, I think that all names should be unique; can you imagine the
chaos that could be caused by there being more than one James
Stewart in Glasgow, for example. Madness!
fuck - there is no confusion. Same with reissued calls.
On 17/04/2023 17:05, Bernie wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 11:24:43 +0100
"jim.gm4dhj" <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2023 18:33, Bernie wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:12:52 +0100
"jim.gm4dhj" <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 15/04/2023 08:57, brian wrote:
In message <u1cicd$1mqgb$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhjall fakers pretending to be what they are not
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
On 14/04/2023 19:07, mm0fmf wrote:
On 14/04/2023 19:00, Roger Hayter wrote:Oh a real callsign then...
Sure you're not signing with your callsign, or something?? I was using Spike's.
 Anyway, fuck off Hayter.
Not many genuine G2 +3 left.
Brian GM6QE
Quite. With older calls like GM4DHJ, G8OSN, G8DXY you know what to
expect from the holder. But if people can take on any old call,
who knows what sort of arsehole you could end up talking to.
indeed
totly
Why? Anyone who knows you would know instantly if they were meetingnow you are being silly Burnie ....
Also, I think that all names should be unique; can you imagine the
chaos that could be caused by there being more than one James
Stewart in Glasgow, for example. Madness!
a different James Stewart, and those who don't know you wouldn't
give a fuck - there is no confusion. Same with reissued calls.
bollox man
there is no confusion. Same with reissued calls.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 17:05:46 +0100
Bernie <bernie.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
there is no confusion. Same with reissued calls.
Only if you didn't know the original.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 23:09:31 +0100
Brian Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 17:05:46 +0100
Bernie <bernie.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
there is no confusion. Same with reissued calls.
Only if you didn't know the original.
Yeah, I said that in the bit you snipped out.
On 18/04/2023 10:21, Bernie wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 23:09:31 +0100
Brian Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 17:05:46 +0100
Bernie <bernie.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
there is no confusion. Same with reissued calls.
Only if you didn't know the original.
Yeah, I said that in the bit you snipped out.
Brian, snipping for points advantage in a "bounce up"? I don't
believe that!
Yeah, I said that in the bit you snipped out.
Brian, snipping for points advantage in a "bounce up"? I don't
believe that!
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 12:10:36 +0100
mm0fmf<none@invalid.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2023 10:21, Bernie wrote:I wouldn't have said it was a bounce up.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 23:09:31 +0100Brian, snipping for points advantage in a "bounce up"? I don't
Brian Morrison<news@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 17:05:46 +0100Yeah, I said that in the bit you snipped out.
Bernie<bernie.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
there is no confusion. Same with reissued calls.Only if you didn't know the original.
believe that!
On 18/04/2023 13:46, Bernie wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 12:10:36 +0100
mm0fmf<none@invalid.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2023 10:21, Bernie wrote:I wouldn't have said it was a bounce up.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 23:09:31 +0100Brian, snipping for points advantage in a "bounce up"? I don't
Brian Morrison<news@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 17:05:46 +0100Yeah, I said that in the bit you snipped out.
Bernie<bernie.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
there is no confusion. Same with reissued calls.Only if you didn't know the original.
believe that!
True, it's a bit flat.
I could tell Hayter to fuck off again.
brian <nospam@b-howie.co.uk> wrote:
In message <u1932j$1100i$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
https://www.essexham.co.uk/ofcom-hints-at-licence-changes.html
Have you been goading ?
We could do with those people on here, it would liven the place up a
bit.
I'm with Ofcom , The exam for all could be reduced to a bare minimum.
Brian
The problem seems to be those who can’t pass the Advanced exam.
I wonder how many have claimed they have and been caught out?
Funny how people claim it is easier than the old RAE - even those who claim >to have BTechs, HND/C , better than a degrees, but still can’t pass it.
Makes me smile every time the topic comes up.
In message <u1jaa4$310l4$1@dont-email.me>, Brian <noinv@lid.org> writes
brian <nospam@b-howie.co.uk> wrote:Rather than not being able to pass the Advanced exam (or simply
In message <u1932j$1100i$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
https://www.essexham.co.uk/ofcom-hints-at-licence-changes.html
Have you been goading ?
We could do with those people on here, it would liven the place up a
bit.
I'm with Ofcom , The exam for all could be reduced to a bare minimum.
Brian
The problem seems to be those who can’t pass the Advanced exam.
I wonder how many have claimed they have and been caught out?
Funny how people claim it is easier than the old RAE - even those who claim >> to have BTechs, HND/C , better than a degrees, but still can’t pass it.
Makes me smile every time the topic comes up.
believing that they won't be able to), I suspect that one of the reasons
that few are now passing it is that they often see no need to.
There are sometimes genuine and understandable reasons for this. One guy
I speak to every day is an M6, and he is fully engaged in leading-edge participation in a satellite internet testing programme. He also does a
lot of digital 'stuff' - all on real QRP. Although he could pass both
the Intermediate and Advanced exams with his eyes closed and both hands
tied behind his back, at the moment he sees no advantage in doing so (assuming he actually had the time).
There is another group who never had no real interest in amateur radio,
but took the Foundation exam essentially as an academic exercise. Some probably have never even heard an amateur QSO, but nevertheless took out
a Foundation callsign which will never be used. It's unlikely that any
in this group will ever go on to Intermediate, let alone Advanced.
There is another group who have found that a Foundation callsign 'gives
them all they need'. I've heard this said verbatim on the air, on
several occasions. Sometimes this is because all they ever really wanted
a callsign for is to chat with a mate down the road (and I suspect they eventually got fed up with this), but there are others who fro many
years have been extremely active (both as ragchewers and DXers). Despite
the 10W power limitation, they still somehow manage to put out amazingly effective signals. If you can work the world easily with an FL callsign,
why bother getting qualifications you don't need?
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <u1jaa4$310l4$1@dont-email.me>, Brian <noinv@lid.org> writes
brian <nospam@b-howie.co.uk> wrote:Rather than not being able to pass the Advanced exam (or simply
In message <u1932j$1100i$1@dont-email.me>, jim.gm4dhj
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> writes
https://www.essexham.co.uk/ofcom-hints-at-licence-changes.html
Have you been goading ?
We could do with those people on here, it would liven the place up a
bit.
I'm with Ofcom , The exam for all could be reduced to a bare minimum. >>>>
Brian
The problem seems to be those who can’t pass the Advanced exam.
I wonder how many have claimed they have and been caught out?
Funny how people claim it is easier than the old RAE - even those who claim >>> to have BTechs, HND/C , better than a degrees, but still can’t pass it. >>>
Makes me smile every time the topic comes up.
believing that they won't be able to), I suspect that one of the reasons
that few are now passing it is that they often see no need to.
There are sometimes genuine and understandable reasons for this. One guy
I speak to every day is an M6, and he is fully engaged in leading-edge
participation in a satellite internet testing programme. He also does a
lot of digital 'stuff' - all on real QRP. Although he could pass both
the Intermediate and Advanced exams with his eyes closed and both hands
tied behind his back, at the moment he sees no advantage in doing so
(assuming he actually had the time).
There is another group who never had no real interest in amateur radio,
but took the Foundation exam essentially as an academic exercise. Some
probably have never even heard an amateur QSO, but nevertheless took out
a Foundation callsign which will never be used. It's unlikely that any
in this group will ever go on to Intermediate, let alone Advanced.
There is another group who have found that a Foundation callsign 'gives
them all they need'. I've heard this said verbatim on the air, on
several occasions. Sometimes this is because all they ever really wanted
a callsign for is to chat with a mate down the road (and I suspect they
eventually got fed up with this), but there are others who fro many
years have been extremely active (both as ragchewers and DXers). Despite
the 10W power limitation, they still somehow manage to put out amazingly
effective signals. If you can work the world easily with an FL callsign,
why bother getting qualifications you don't need?
You make a valid point. I certainly people who were happy with 10w then 50w and I know ran no more- they had asked me to check/ adjust their radios for them- and with good, basic antennas achieved good results on HF .
I’ve no problem with that group.
Those on the Essex Ham site seem to want more power in the belief it will magically mean more contacts etc. Then, that belief isn’t new or unique to ‘newcomers’.I remember you Brian being over the moon twenty years ago when you were
As a hobby, we need to be wary of the public and RF fears . The last thing we need is the kind of issues the mobile phone companies face when erecting masts.
As a hobby, we need to be wary of the public and RF fears . The last
thing we need is the kind of issues the mobile phone companies face
when erecting masts.
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:14:32 -0000 (UTC)
Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
As a hobby, we need to be wary of the public and RF fears . The last
thing we need is the kind of issues the mobile phone companies face
when erecting masts.
Perhaps, as a hobby, we should be prepared to make the public aware,
when they ask, about the new level of assessment that we are all
required to carry out now.
It's unfortunate that the general public do not have the effects of low
level RF, to which they may be subjected, more clearly explained. It's
a complete non-problem in 99.99% of cases and no one has been able to demonstrate otherwise in what are mostly unrepresentative studies.
Brian Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:14:32 -0000 (UTC)
Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
As a hobby, we need to be wary of the public and RF fears . The
last thing we need is the kind of issues the mobile phone
companies face when erecting masts.
Perhaps, as a hobby, we should be prepared to make the public aware,
when they ask, about the new level of assessment that we are all
required to carry out now.
It's unfortunate that the general public do not have the effects of
low level RF, to which they may be subjected, more clearly
explained. It's a complete non-problem in 99.99% of cases and no
one has been able to demonstrate otherwise in what are mostly unrepresentative studies.
The rent a mob nutters who object aren’t interested in facts.
Rather like the Net Zero idiots.
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 16:25:53 -0000 (UTC)
Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
Brian Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:14:32 -0000 (UTC)
Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
As a hobby, we need to be wary of the public and RF fears . The
last thing we need is the kind of issues the mobile phone
companies face when erecting masts.
Perhaps, as a hobby, we should be prepared to make the public aware,
when they ask, about the new level of assessment that we are all
required to carry out now.
It's unfortunate that the general public do not have the effects of
low level RF, to which they may be subjected, more clearly
explained. It's a complete non-problem in 99.99% of cases and no
one has been able to demonstrate otherwise in what are mostly
unrepresentative studies.
The rent a mob nutters who object aren’t interested in facts.
Rather like the Net Zero idiots.
Rather sadly I have to concur, but I suppose that one should continue
telling people how it is.
On 19/04/2023 18:45, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 16:25:53 -0000 (UTC)
Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
Brian Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:14:32 -0000 (UTC)
Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
As a hobby, we need to be wary of the public and RF fears . The
last thing we need is the kind of issues the mobile phone
companies face when erecting masts.
Perhaps, as a hobby, we should be prepared to make the public aware,
when they ask, about the new level of assessment that we are all
required to carry out now.
It's unfortunate that the general public do not have the effects of
low level RF, to which they may be subjected, more clearly
explained. It's a complete non-problem in 99.99% of cases and no
one has been able to demonstrate otherwise in what are mostly
unrepresentative studies.
The rent a mob nutters who object aren’t interested in facts.
Rather like the Net Zero idiots.
Rather sadly I have to concur, but I suppose that one should continue
telling people how it is.
Never mind RF, what about low level Radon gas?
Never mind RF, what about low level Radon gas?
In message <kaanqgFcngqU1@mid.individual.net>, A. non Eyemouse <somewhere@work.invalid> writes
all the gas is on youtube with hammy mens giving master classes ....You overlook the possibility of some nutters who might associate radon
Never mind RF, what about low level Radon gas?
gas with radio waves (cf paediatricians with paedophiles).
In message <kaanqgFcngqU1@mid.individual.net>, A. non Eyemouse <somewhere@work.invalid> writes
Never mind RF, what about low level Radon gas?
You overlook the possibility of some nutters who might associate
radon gas with radio waves (cf paediatricians with paedophiles).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 89:41:25 |
| Calls: | 6,697 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,232 |
| Messages: | 5,348,420 |