you haven't, but there is one particular person, who has to say the least
been a total pane on this issue, and I would not be at all surprised if that
person from another list started those nasty roomers here in the first
place, I thought I had got him off my back, but to have someone else start
asking was just more than I could stand after that other person.
why not just be satisfied with the info that I do have a callsign, but do
not wish to reveal it, lets just say for personal reasons which I am not
going in to here.
I really don't see why you all have to get so worked up just because someone
does not give you there personal info, I do not go round asking every ham I
happen to meet there callsigns when off air.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: looking for a 934 aerial please.
> I've never bullied you in any way, shape, or form, I simply asked one time
> because there are many that say you don't have one but since you got so
> offended when I asked you once, you've just proven me right in a lot of
> people's eyes. I will never deal with you on anything at this point nor
will
> I be paying attention to any more messages from you so this is now closed,
> you gave the proof.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "goshawk" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 9:32 PM
> Subject: Re: looking for a 934 aerial please.
>
>
> > first, there is no evidence what so ever, and second, I refuse to give
my
> > callsign to people who continuously bully and victimise for it. I would
> > also
> > remind you, that I am under no legal obligation to give it to anyone
when
> > not on air.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 2:19 AM
> > Subject: Re: looking for a 934 aerial please.
> >
> >
> >> what's your call sign? there is good evidence that suggests you don't
> >> have
> >> one.
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "goshawk" <[log in to unmask]>
> >> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 8:34 PM
> >> Subject: Re: looking for a 934 aerial please.
> >>
> >>
> >> > and why should I not buy ham radio transmitters, when I have a
licence
> >> > already?
> >> > also, why should I take the test twice just to please you?
> >> >
> >> > Simon
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----=20
> >> > From: "Georgina Joyce" <[log in to unmask]>
> >> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >> > Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 3:48 PM
> >> > Subject: Re: looking for a 934 aerial please.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Simon
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm sorry, but you keep asking difficult questions of the radio
> > communi=
> >> > ty.
> >> > Many of us will NOT assist you in breaking the law. You keep buying
> > amat=
> >> > eur
> >> > transmitters and now your asking for a CB antenna, which I understand
> >> > to
> > =
> >> > be
> >> > an ilegal CB UK band. Or is this yiki wrong?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Many CB users who witnessed the noisy and unruly conditions on 27
> > MH=
> >> > z
> >> > wanted to get away from all that and use
> >> >> the superior 934 MHz UHF CB allocation. In fact, the cost of
> >> >> cutting
> >> > edge (at the time) UHF radio equipment
> >> >> meant that only the more serious CB operator would use the band,
a
> > n=
> >> > ice
> >> > though expensive haven for mature CB
> >> >> operators, and radio hams who didn't like the 'red tape' of
amateur
> >> > radio. At first the range was limited, but
> >> >> as antenna restrictions were lifted and better equipment started
to
> >> > appear, the number of UHF CB operators
> >> >> grew. The 934 MHz band was eventually discontinued by the
> > government=
> >> > on
> >> > [23]31 December [24]1998 due to low
> >> >> user numbers. The main reason for the public refusing to accept
the
> > =
> >> > 934
> >> > MHz band was its cost (up to =A3500 for
> >> >> a radio), coupled with the fact that by the time reliable
Japanese
> >> > equipment became available in the
> >> >> mid-1980s, most people had opted for the noisy and cheap 27 MHz,
or
> >> > gone on to take the Radio Amateur Exam.
> >> >>
> >> >> I suggest that you undertake the amateur exams and you'll develope
the
> >> > skills to build your own antennas legal or ilegal but don't ask us to
> >> > do
> > =
> >> > it
> >> > for you.
> >> >>
> >> >> Gena
> >> >> On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 08:20:10AM +0100, goshawk wrote:
> >> >> > hello list,=3D20
> >> >> > I am looking for a good 934MHZ aerial, for both transmit and
receive
> > =
> >> > =3D
> >> >> > please. I would prefer a vertical rather than a beam.=3D20
> >> >> > if anyone has one to clear out, or knows where there are any
going,
> > =3D
> >> >> > please email off list to,=3D20
> >> >> > [log in to unmask]
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Simon=3D20
> >> >> >
> >> >> ---end quoted text---
> >> >>
> >> >> --=20
> >> >> 2E0AXU
> >> >>
> >> >> Freedom & Power provided by debian GNU Linux
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
|
