NABER Certification

[Brian Feeny]

Hello,

I was wondering if someone could tell me what the NABER Certification isand
just how recognized it is. I have a CET (ETA), and FCC GROL license
currently. An associate at work (USAF) told me that the FCC license
is no longer recognized by industry and that employers (motorola, att,
nt, etc) now want you to have the NABER Certification. He claimed the
FCC was more of a operating license then maintence.
The way I understand it, FCC is both operating and maintence of certain
equiptment. I thought employers wanted EITHER the naber or fcc, but
had never heard a firm wanting just the naber.

Any information about the NABER Certification would be appreciated.

[Mark Kinsler]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I was wondering if someone could tell me what the NABER Certification is

and just how recognized it is. I have a CET (ETA), and FCC GROL license

currently. An associate at work (USAF) told me that the FCC license is no
longer recognized by industry and that employers (motorola, att, nt, etc)
now want you to have the NABER Certification. He claimed the FCC was more
of a operating license then maintence. The way I understand it, FCC is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'd be interested in this, too. I used to work at various trade schools
and colleges with electronics engineering technology programs and the big
deal for the electronics students was to go off at graduation and attempt
an FCC license test. It seemed to me then and now that the FCC test
wasn't much of an indicator of electronics knowledge anyway: it was used
because it was an easy, cheap and independent, if technically obsolete,
indicator of the performance of our students.
If somebody has a better electronics certification program, I'd welcome
it. My perception of the CET idea is that it is a failure, if only
because there seem to be several competing CET organizations. I've never
heard of NABER. What is it, and can someone post an address?

M Kinsler
CET, FCC, BSEE, MSEE, PhD,EE, and
I _still_ can't figure out most of
this stuff!

[Tinkertek]

I also have the FCC GROL license. My understanding is, that before all
these tests were lumped into one general group, it used to be very
valuable to have an FCC 1st Class Radio-Telephone License. I have heard
that it was extremely difficult to pass it (I'd like to try). Now, it
seems as though this GROL thing is being offered more readily, even at the
same location as Ham radio exams.

So, I would also be interested in Naber Certification. Also, what does the
CET exam entail and do you think it is worth the effort ? Please e-mail
with info.

Thanks,

Tink...@Aol.Com

[Jerry Tarleton]

Brian Feeny <sig...@delphi.com> wrote:

>Hello,

>
> I was wondering if someone could tell me what the NABER Certification isand
>just how recognized it is. I have a CET (ETA), and FCC GROL license
>currently. An associate at work (USAF) told me that the FCC license
>is no longer recognized by industry and that employers (motorola, att,
>nt, etc) now want you to have the NABER Certification. He claimed the
>FCC was more of a operating license then maintence.

>The way I understand it, FCC is both operating and maintence of certain
>equiptment. I thought employers wanted EITHER the naber or fcc, but
>had never heard a firm wanting just the naber.
>
>Any information about the NABER Certification would be appreciated.
>

Prior to about 1982, the FCC Second Class Radiotelephone Operator's
License was required in order for a technician to repair or make
adjustments to radio transmitting equipment. A First Class
Radiotelephone Operator's License was required for technicians who
worked on broadcast equipment (radio and tv stations). A Ship Radar
Endorsement was available for both licenses.

Due to government downsizing initiated by President Reagan, the FCC
eliminated these licenses around 1982. The private sector would now
be responsible for ensuring that radio technicians be qualified. As a
result, NABER (National Association of Business and Educational Radio)
came up with a program to certify technicians.

Technicians who had a First or Second Class License had the
opportunity to renew their FCC license as a General Class
Radiotelephone Operator's License. This new license had no
expiration. The old license had to be renewed every five years. The
FCC did NOT require this license to work on general communications
equipment.

NABER issued certificates to FCC licensed technicians who applied
under their "grandfather" clause. They also developed tests for
technicians who were not "grandfathered."

I worked for Motorola during the transition period. Prior to the FCC
license change, Motorola required either a Second or First Class
License. After the change, they required either a General Class FCC
License or a NABER Certificate. I don't know what they require today.
A General Class FCC License is required by the company where I now
work.

Testing for the General Class FCC License used to be done a couple
times a month in major cities. Contact the FCC for more information.

For information about the NABER Certificate contact NABER at
1-800-759-0300. Their address is:

NABER
1501 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

If you need one of the above for employment, I would recommend the FCC
License. It is good for a lifetime. The NABER certificate must be
renewed, and now costs about $30 for 3 years. I still renew mine, but
I don't know if it's really worthwhile, since my employer doesn't
require it.

--
Jerry Tarleton
tarl...@mindspring.com

[Lartronics]

As current Chairman of ISCET (International Society of Certified
Electronics Technicains) I am vitally interested in certification of
electronics technicians. ISCET has been developing, administering and to
those who pass the exam, been granting certification certificates for 25
years! There are tests available in all aspects of electronics. More than
35,000 tests have been given by my organization. For more info contact
ISCET at 2608 West Berry Street, Ft Worth TX 76109/ Phone 817-921-9101

[Mark Kinsler]

So why'd you guys drop the ball years ago? I took the CET exam in maybe
1972 for audio and paid my $ and got my card. Apparently all that
entitled me to was a series of ads urging me to join the ISCET, which I
never did because it cost a lot, as I recall.
Beyond that, nothing: no publicity to try to establish the legitimacy
of the CET. No further testing or educational programs. The auto
mechanics certification people did stuff like this, and their
certification program is a success.
Then, a few years ago, I found that there seemed to be several
competing CET programs. That finished the CET program for me and the
students at the trade school I was working at.
I've been in the electronics education business for a while now. Before
I started graduate school a few years ago, I had a few discussions with
ABET (the Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology) about the
accreditation of trade schools and correspondence courses in electronics.
I think that it's clear that we need someone with the moral authority of
the FCC, the IEEE, or ABET to administer certification programs in
electronics if we're going to do it at all. I regret to say that the
ISCET certainly hasn't done the job and shows no signs of doing so in the
future.

M Kinsler

[videogamen...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 21, 1995 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Brian Feeny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering if someone could tell me what the NABER Certification isand
> just how recognized it is. I have a CET (ETA), and FCC GROL license
> currently. An associate at work (USAF) told me that the FCC license
> is no longer recognized by industry and that employers (motorola, att,
> nt, etc) now want you to have the NABER Certification. He claimed the
> FCC was more of a operating license then maintence.
> The way I understand it, FCC is both operating and maintence of certain
> equiptment. I thought employers wanted EITHER the naber or fcc, but
> had never heard a firm wanting just the naber.
>
> Any information about the NABER Certification would be appreciated.

The NABER was an attempt to replace the FCC First class Radio-ttelephone license in the last century. The FCC loosly says that it's up to the station's owner to establish the technition's technical competance. The NABER is one way to show that. The amatuer FCC Extra class license has a good start towards the NABER. Now days with circuit board swapping as the norm for many technicians, component level troubleshooting can be a valuable asset to be exploited. Exact repplacements is another area that is required to maintain FCC compliance under type acceptance guidelines. Under part 15, 90, 95 & 97 of CFR 47. Reading these can help with test questions. Brodcasting rules would also help those interested in taking on that chalenge. Find a CFR library near you or buy from library of congress's help.

[videogamen...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 21, 1995 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Brian Feeny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering if someone could tell me what the NABER Certification isand
> just how recognized it is. I have a CET (ETA), and FCC GROL license
> currently. An associate at work (USAF) told me that the FCC license
> is no longer recognized by industry and that employers (motorola, att,
> nt, etc) now want you to have the NABER Certification. He claimed the
> FCC was more of a operating license then maintence.
> The way I understand it, FCC is both operating and maintence of certain
> equiptment. I thought employers wanted EITHER the naber or fcc, but
> had never heard a firm wanting just the naber.
>
> Any information about the NABER Certification would be appreciated.

National Asociation of Broadcast Engineers = NABER

[Ralph Mowery]

<videogamen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a95636f2-40e3-4ff1...@googlegroups.com...

Wow this is old, from 1995.

There is almost no need for any licenses now for commercial work except
maybe ships and airplanes. Way back then if you had a First Class Phone
license you could just send in a form and get the NABER paper. I had one
way back then, but never got a job that needed it and let it expire after
the second renewal. Just did not want to give them about $ 20 for something
I was not using.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:20:49 -0800 (PST),
videogamen...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, April 21, 1995 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Brian Feeny wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I was wondering if someone could tell me what the NABER Certification isand
>> just how recognized it is. I have a CET (ETA), and FCC GROL license
>> currently. An associate at work (USAF) told me that the FCC license
>> is no longer recognized by industry and that employers (motorola, att,
>> nt, etc) now want you to have the NABER Certification. He claimed the
>> FCC was more of a operating license then maintence.
>> The way I understand it, FCC is both operating and maintence of certain
>> equiptment. I thought employers wanted EITHER the naber or fcc, but
>> had never heard a firm wanting just the naber.
>>
>> Any information about the NABER Certification would be appreciated.

>The NABER was an attempt to replace the FCC First class Radio-ttelephone
>license in the last century.

Wrong. NABER was a frequency coordination organization. In order to
obtain a commercial license, the FCC requires that the licensee makes
an effort to minimize possible interference with co-channel users.
That function was taken over the various industry frequency
coordinators, including NABER. NABER merged with the PCIA in 2002 and
now operates under the PCIA name. The major tower owners are all
members of the PCIA.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCIA_-_The_Wireless_Infrastructure_Association>
Each industry has its own frequency coordinators. For example, for
industrial and business radio:
<http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=licensing_3&id=industrial_business>

>The FCC loosly says that it's up to the station's owner to establish
>the technition's technical competance.

Wrong. The FCC uses the successful completion of the GROL license
test in order to establish competence. However, frequency
coordination is run by industry groups, not technicians. In theory,
you can do your own frequency coordination, but it's unlikely to be
accepted by the FCC.

>The NABER is one way to show that.
>The amatuer FCC Extra class license has a good start towards the NABER.

NABOR does not certify a persons technical competence. Rest of the
garbage deleted.

>National Asociation of Broadcast Engineers = NABER

Wrong. National Association of Business and Educational Radio.

So, why did you reply to a 1995 posting with a rather large pile of
wrong information and bad guesses? Is this some kind of game designed
to waste everyone's time?

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Ralph Mowery]

"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:jjjr7bdhulheverkm...@4ax.com...

>>>The NABER was an attempt to replace the FCC First class Radio-ttelephone
>>license in the last century.
>
> Wrong. NABER was a frequency coordination organization. In order to
> obtain a commercial license, the FCC requires that the licensee makes
> an effort to minimize possible interference with co-channel users.
> That function was taken over the various industry frequency
> coordinators, including NABER. NABER merged with the PCIA in 2002 and
> now operates under the PCIA name. The major tower owners are all
> members of the PCIA.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCIA_-_The_Wireless_Infrastructure_Association>
> Each industry has its own frequency coordinators. For example, for
> industrial and business radio:
> <http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=licensing_3&id=industrial_business>
>
>>The FCC loosly says that it's up to the station's owner to establish
>>the technition's technical competance.
>
> Wrong. The FCC uses the successful completion of the GROL license
> test in order to establish competence. However, frequency
> coordination is run by industry groups, not technicians. In theory,
> you can do your own frequency coordination, but it's unlikely to be
> accepted by the FCC.
>

I had to dig out my NABER paper to make sure. This dates back to 1984. At
some point around then NABER issued me a papaer with CERTIFIED TECHNICIAN
across the top. This was to act as a replacement for my First Class Phone
license. All was needed to do was fill out a form and send them around $ 20
every 5 years.

One line of it says 'This individual is herby reconized as a NABER Certified
Technichan through a FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION endorsed program."

I am not sure of the time line as I did not go into the radio and TV repair
part of electronics but at some time around or after that it was no longer a
FCC requirement to have a license issued by the FCC or anyone else to work
on the TV and radio stations or most of the 2 way radios.. The individual
stations may require whatever they want.

I know a man that was the head for the local Highway Patrol and he was
telling me that at one time they required either a First or Second class
license but the FCC no longer issued them, going to the GROL. The state
finally got around to changing that requirement after a year or two. They
needed to hire someone, but the state did not reconise the GROL for a while
so they were a man short.

I don't know who or what did the frequency coordination for the broadcast
and other bands other than the ham bands. They may have done that at the
time.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 17:52:05 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
<rmower...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>There is almost no need for any licenses now for commercial work except
>maybe ships and airplanes.

Even though the work can be done without a license, someone with a
license still needs to sign off the paperwork:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_radiotelephone_operator_license>
The GROL does not convey the authority to operate an amateur
radio station, for which the FCC has a separate licensing
system, nor is it required for any engineering jobs in radio
and television broadcast. However, some services such as
aviation, marine and international fixed public stations still
require repair and maintenance to be performed by a person
holding a GROL.
There are also a tangle of other licenses that might be needed, such
as for operating a shore station, etc:
<http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/>
<http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/index.htm?job=wncol>

>Way back then if you had a First Class Phone
>license you could just send in a form and get the NABER paper.

No such thing as a NABER paper. I think you mean the GROL, which
replaced the FCC First Phone. I screwed up and let my FCC First Phone
expire, and had to take the GROL from scratch.

>I had one
>way back then, but never got a job that needed it and let it expire after
>the second renewal. Just did not want to give them about $ 20 for something
>I was not using.

Yeah, but it's good for life. You should have gone for the GROL. If
you change your mind, the running cost is currently $50 for the exam:
<http://www.eta-i.org/fcccaapps.pdf>

Long ago, I found a problem with having a license. During the 1970's,
I worked for a marine radio manufacturer. At the time, I was the only
person with an FCC First, so the company used my license number to
certify that everything shipped was within specifications. To make it
easy for me, they had made some rubber stamps, which appeared on the
QA test sheet included with every radio. A few years after I left the
company, I discovered that they were still using the same rubber
stamps. Oops.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 19:14:19 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
<rmower...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I had to dig out my NABER paper to make sure. This dates back to 1984. At
>some point around then NABER issued me a papaer with CERTIFIED TECHNICIAN
>across the top. This was to act as a replacement for my First Class Phone
>license. All was needed to do was fill out a form and send them around $ 20
>every 5 years.
>
>One line of it says 'This individual is herby reconized as a NABER Certified
>Technichan through a FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION endorsed program."

I must have been asleep at the switch. I was actively designing
radios for various companies at the time, and never ran into that
program. According to:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_radiotelephone_operator_license>
"In 1982 testing stopped for the First. Shortly afterwards
all renewing First and Second Class licenses, were issued
as GROLs."
So, there was no gap between the First and the GROL where NABER might
issue some kind of interum license. The 5 year term changed to
lifetime in 1985.

>I am not sure of the time line as I did not go into the radio and TV repair
>part of electronics but at some time around or after that it was no longer a
>FCC requirement to have a license issued by the FCC or anyone else to work
>on the TV and radio stations or most of the 2 way radios.. The individual
>stations may require whatever they want.

That changed around the same time period. I couldn't find exact
dates.

[Ralph Mowery]

"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in message

news:hgmr7b5luplig7g9p...@4ax.com...

>>>Way back then if you had a First Class Phone
>>license you could just send in a form and get the NABER paper.
>
> No such thing as a NABER paper. I think you mean the GROL, which
> replaced the FCC First Phone. I screwed up and let my FCC First Phone
> expire, and had to take the GROL from scratch.
>

No I don't mean the GROL. I have the paper from NABER on my desk right now.
Also there is a credit card size paper that goes with it so you can carry it
around with you as proff .
Some places would require some of the FCC licenses or the NABER one, not
that the FCC required it, but as some sort of proff that you had an idea of
what RF was.

I got the First Phone when I was about 22.. Never did get into anythng I
needed it for as I went to industrial electronics instead of anything
involving RF as it paid more at the time and had a good retirement.

Here is the NABAER paper

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7wJcih38lRATEN5U0pwdzVlV1U/view?usp=sharing

[Jeff Liebermann]

Thanks. I thought it was in place of the license. It looks more like
is a certification that is in addition to the license (or maybe
instead of the license). At the time, many companies were busy giving
tests and issuing diplomas, certificates, cards, plaques, stamps, etc
attesting to a person having passed a proficiency exam. In most
cases, the certificate holder was required to renew the certification
every 5 years, ostensibly because the products and the technology had
changed. More accurately, it was a revenue source for the company,
but I'll pretend not to notice. Holding an applicable certification
also became a job requirement for many computah jobs. I knew people
that collected certifications because their employers encouraged the
practice. However, the NABER certification was in 1984, well before
such certifications became common in the computer industry. As I
mentioned, I must have been asleep, and didn't even notice such things
until maybe 1993. Then, I didn't bother getting certified for
anything.

[Ralph Mowery]

"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in message

news:sn2s7b5cu2n2es20k...@4ax.com...

>>>Here is the NABAER paper
>>
>>https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7wJcih38lRATEN5U0pwdzVlV1U/view?usp=sharing
>
> Thanks. I thought it was in place of the license. It looks more like
> is a certification that is in addition to the license (or maybe
> instead of the license). At the time, many companies were busy giving
> tests and issuing diplomas, certificates, cards, plaques, stamps, etc
> attesting to a person having passed a proficiency exam. In most
> cases, the certificate holder was required to renew the certification
> every 5 years, ostensibly because the products and the technology had
> changed. More accurately, it was a revenue source for the company,
> but I'll pretend not to notice. Holding an applicable certification
> also became a job requirement for many computah jobs. I knew people
> that collected certifications because their employers encouraged the
> practice. However, the NABER certification was in 1984, well before
> such certifications became common in the computer industry. As I
> mentioned, I must have been asleep, and didn't even notice such things
> until maybe 1993. Then, I didn't bother getting certified for
> anything.
>

That is what I got when the First Class Phone was not needed any more and
the First and Second Class was changed over to the GROL.

I agree , I think many companies were started up or started handing out some
kind of certification just to make money. Where I worked I had to get
certified every year for something about radiation. Then came the
refregeration and ozone scare, certified to operate a stud gun, operate some
man lifting platforms, the Star program, ISO 6000 or was it 9000 , TPM,
deversity training, PLC certification (only thing that I got any training on
worth anything), don't recall what all else. Retired about the time the six
sigma came out with all the stupid belts. I even thought the First Phone
was a joke when I took it in 1972. I had studied some on a 2 nd class book
and at the time it cost one dollar more to take the First, so I signed up
for that and passed everything the first day. Never did see a TV
transmitter and would not know what to do if I had.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Ralph Mowery wrote:
>
> That is what I got when the First Class Phone was not needed any more and
> the First and Second Class was changed over to the GROL.
>
> I agree , I think many companies were started up or started handing out some
> kind of certification just to make money. Where I worked I had to get
> certified every year for something about radiation. Then came the
> refregeration and ozone scare, certified to operate a stud gun, operate some
> man lifting platforms, the Star program, ISO 6000 or was it 9000 , TPM,
> deversity training, PLC certification (only thing that I got any training on
> worth anything), don't recall what all else. Retired about the time the six
> sigma came out with all the stupid belts. I even thought the First Phone
> was a joke when I took it in 1972. I had studied some on a 2 nd class book
> and at the time it cost one dollar more to take the First, so I signed up
> for that and passed everything the first day. Never did see a TV
> transmitter and would not know what to do if I had.

The first thing you would have discovered is that TV used a pair of
transmitters, in 1972. That was the year that I tested out of the three
year, depot level school for broadcast engineering. It was the
equivalent of the FCC First Phone, and was convertible without taking
the FCC test, until the year before I left the service. I worked at
three TV stations, in all. One AFRTS Army station, and two commercial
UHF stations without a First Phone.

[Robin Scott Marsh]

I too received my NABER certification paperwork and card back around 1986. I recall having to drive up to L.A. from San Diego and taking a long test covering all type of electronic, RF, Television and FCC type questions. It was a 3 or 4 hour brutal test. I think the NABER certification disappeared from usage more than twenty years ago. I looked to see if I could recertify it 20 years ago and it was nowhere to be found. I Had my NARTE CET and GROL licenses and wanted to beef up my resume with the NABER license. No Joy!

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <76c3d3e1-09cf-4390...@googlegroups.com>,
robin.ma...@gmail.com says...

> I too received my NABER certification paperwork and card back around 1986. I recall having to drive up to L.A. from San Diego and taking a long test covering all type of electronic, RF, Television and FCC type questions. It was a 3 or 4 hour brutal test. I think the NABER certification disappeared from usage more than twenty
years ago. I looked to see if I could recertify it 20 years ago and it was nowhere to be found. I Had my NARTE CET and GROL licenses and wanted to beef up my resume with the NABER license. No Joy!
>
>

I had that NABER but got tired of sending them money as I never did work
in the field that needed that. Have no idea about it now.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:20:49 -0800 (PST),
videogamen...@gmail.com wrote:

Originally, NABER was one of the first frequency coordination
organizations to be recognized by the FCC. As I vaguely recall, they
initially handled mostly land mobile stations, and were structured as
a "business radio user organization". If you wanted a business
frequency, you had to join NABER. They may have branched out into
other areas later. See the first paragraph at:
<https://www.google.com/books/edition/Hearings/5fkFAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=National+Association+of+Business+and+Educational+Radio&pg=RA4-PA37&printsec=frontcover>
I don't know when they began issuing certifications as I was doing
other things when that began.

Some of their history is still around:
<http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n85-3375/>
The timeline is wrong as they were fully functional in the 1960's and
1970's.
<https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3ANational+Association+of+Business+and+Educational+Radio+%28U.S.%29&qt=hot_author>
<https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=National+Association+of+Business+and+Educational+Radio>

What little contact I had with NABER was not mutually advantageous.
NABER was highly bureaucratic, but an improvement over dealing with
the FCC. Like most certification issuing organizations of the day,
their primary purpose of the exams was likely to have been to sell
their books, study material, classes, etc to assist applicants with
the intentionally confusing questions in the exams.

Over the years, I've had many opportunities to take various
certification exams, but never bothered. There were a few that I
recall wanting, just for the status symbol. Somehow, the lack of
certificates never affected my rather checkered career. I guess ham
radio and GROL licenses might be considered certificates:
<https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=2228353>
<https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=2482894>

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Peter W.]

Note that this thread started in 1995!

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Jeff Liebermann]

I noticed, after I posted my reply. That's also that my reply was
mostly a duplicate of what I had replied to the thread in 2015. I had
been doing yard work, became overheated, and nearly passed out. After
I somewhat recovered, I cleverly decided that it would be a good time
to catch up on email and Usenet. The next day, I read what I had
posted and decided that perhaps it was not such a clever idea. My
apologies. However, I suspect it will happen again if I read
something interesting as was the case with this thread.