Well I agree with every one you are not a ham!
----- Original Message -----
From: "goshawk" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 10:13 PM
Subject: Re: looking for a 934 aerial please.
> 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
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
|
