No Code Arrives!
He'sDoneItAgain
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269012A1.pdf
BDK
ag...@emanon.net says...
> Looks like "no-code" is finally here...
>
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269012A1.pdf
>
Finally, some sanity.
BDK
Dorpmuller
>
> BDK
Amen to that!
Rich
Clem
@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:
> Looks like "no-code" is finally here...
>
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269012A1.pdf
Why I find the "no code" licensing troublesome.
I first experienced ham radio at the age of 7. Now at two weeks short of
52 I find the whole cw experience satisfying from a competitive
perspective. Learning the code wasn't hard. Increasing my speed was the
difficult part as most have also discovered.
Did I whine or cry, did I hold my breath, did I toss a fit in front of
the examiners? No, no and no!
I practiced hard and when I thought I was ready I took the test and
flunked! Boo! Hoo! So what? Not passing a test is not the worse thing
that could happen. It told me something. Its failure said I was only one
word short of passing. Through the encouragement of the examiners I took
a re-test and passed later that day. WOO! HOO!
I understand that some people lack the ability to pass a 5wpm test much
less 13 or higher. I'm one who can not go higher than 13. If I try my
brain turns into that "other" white meat. <grin>
My belief is that all operators should be able to pass at the very least
3-5 wpm. Why, not simply because it's a time honored method of
communications, but because when digital and voice systems go dead or
satellites won't function properly, in a real emergency cw, even at a
greatly reduced power level can get a message through.
I want to be a pilot or a surgeon but the testing is to difficult.
(Waving the magic wand, whoosh!) Ok, now the testing for a pilot or
surgeon has been made easier. Does that make them safer or anymore
proficient? Obviously we kicked professionalism down a notch or two.
Ham radio is more than only a hobby. As operators we assist our local
communities and law enforcement agencies. When others couldn't get a
message through, we did. During times of war before the Internet and
personal computers amateur radio operators assisted the government in
passing messages to families and loved ones.M.A.R.S., ever hear of it?
As far as I know it's still around today.
Making it easier to have some things like the Internet to keep phone cost
down and famlies closer together is great. You shouldn't have to be an
Einstein to use that mode of communications.
On the other hand, ham radio is a wee bit more complicated and the
operations of any station should only be performed by a licensed operator
who can show proficiency not only in voice or data communications, but in
a backup method such as cw too.
The Late Arky Bob
> Looks like "no-code" is finally here...
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269012A1.pdf
maybe mr davies can check in the great liberty net now
helmsman
wrote:
>Looks like "no-code" is finally here...
>
>http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269012A1.pdf
All the CBer's should be happy.
dxAce
helmsman wrote:
They'll move on to complaining about the written test material next.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
D Peter Maus
They did a LONG time ago, Steve. That's how the multiple choice with
published answers came about.
dxAce
D Peter Maus wrote:
Even that will go by the wayside and they'll simply sign an 'X' at the bottom of
a form.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
Steve Stone
emergency traffic.
Steve
Brenda Ann
news:4583F580...@milestones.com...
They already do that with what was once the First Class Radiotelephone
Operator License (now the Radiotelephone Operator Permit). This is a wallet
sized card that literally anyone who can sign their name (or an X) can have.
This is not the same thing as a General Radiotelephone Operator License,
which all First and Second Class Radiotelephone Operator License holders
were issued when the former licenses were abolished. As far as I know, the
GROL has also now been abolished. I can't even get a new copy of my GROL,
as the FCC tells me they no longer issue them. So much for spending the time
and effort to study and receive a First Phone....
cbx
most illogical thing, they eliminated the code. Same reason our
schools now place in the 2nd 50 places in the world since 1964.
You can piss and moan and say it's not politically correct, but
sometimes truth hurts.
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:32:01 -0500, He'sDoneItAgain <ag...@emanon.net>
wrote:
>Looks like "no-code" is finally here...
>
>http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269012A1.pdf
r2000...@hotmail.com
Brenda Ann wrote:
> They already do that with what was once the First Class Radiotelephone
> Operator License (now the Radiotelephone Operator Permit). This is a wallet
> sized card that literally anyone who can sign their name (or an X) can have.
>
> This is not the same thing as a General Radiotelephone Operator License,
> which all First and Second Class Radiotelephone Operator License holders
> were issued when the former licenses were abolished. As far as I know, the
> GROL has also now been abolished. I can't even get a new copy of my GROL,
> as the FCC tells me they no longer issue them. So much for spending the time
> and effort to study and receive a First Phone....
About ?20? years ago GROL were given a one time oppertunity to get a
life time license,
on the yuckiest cheap paper you can imagine. When I asked the FCC
engineer I knew
he told me if I lost it it wouldn't be replaced. Last time I asked he
told me he thought
they (FCC) no longer had any records as to who held what commercial
license. He
retired about 5 years ago and died soon after from a massive stroke.
I am sure you could find an image on the web, clean it up and insert
your data
and no one would ever know, or really no one would even care.
Terry
charlie
> Yeah, certain ethnic groups could not cut the code, so the FCC did the
> most illogical thing, they eliminated the code. Same reason our
> schools now place in the 2nd 50 places in the world since 1964.
> You can piss and moan and say it's not politically correct, but
> sometimes truth hurts.
>
>
It's not so much politically incorrect as it is hearsay that feeds
racism - as I am sure you are aware.
<PLONK>
John Smith
> ...
> This is not the same thing as a General Radiotelephone Operator License,
You might find this interesting:
http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/pg.html
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> Yeah, certain ethnic groups could not cut the code, so the FCC did the
Frankly, it was my experience that certain ethnic groups were unable to
handle code was not the problem.
Rather, once members of certain ethnic groups obtained licenses, they
were made to "feel uncomfortable" by certain members of the amateur
community. Being white myself, I was ashamed for some of these
operators ...
Regards,
JS
Brian Hill
"helmsman" <helm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:glk7o2drvsc7mp788...@4ax.com...
The ham bands sound like LIDville nowadays. Have you not been listening and
the most dysfunctional newsgroups on Usenet are amateur topic groups. I feel
sorry for the good hams that have to put up with the shit. They should make
the test to where anyone with a IQ of less than 120 can not apply. I
remember listening to some pretty sharp guys on the ham bands when I was a
kid. Learned a lot about propagation and antennas etc.. just listening to
them. Now days you gotta dig for a good QSO. They should set a part of the
hf bands for just CW operators and you can't operate unless you have a CW
license and they should have a test to see if your a retarded LID and if so
you get the jackoff spectrum. I mean why not?
BH
John Smith
> ...
> BH
>
>
While analog communications decline in importance (and it is a stretch
defining CW as digital), digital communications are where the brains are
at. You might wish to upgrade your equipment.
JS
Brian Hill
"John Smith" <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:em14b1$37n$1...@aioe.org...
I'm not talking about equip, I'm talking about brains. The fight here isn't
about CW so much as it is about a bunch of guys that wish to not hang out
with a bunch of retards and yes there are some sharp people that don't know
or use code that would be welcome but the fear is that no code will bring
more dorks into the mix and I understand their point.
BH
John Smith
> I'm not talking about equip, I'm talking about brains. The fight here isn't
> more dorks into the mix and I understand their point.
>
> BH
>
>
Brian:
I find the same ratio of dorks-to-brains exists in amateur radio as
exists in the "normal population." Indeed, the amateur topic newsgroups
reflect this same tendency.
A license and/or knowledge of CW has never been able to help the dorks ...
Regards,
JS
Brian Hill
You may be right. I'm just expressing the pro code viewpoint and your not
going to change their mind on it no matter how much you argue the point.
BH
Roadrunner NNTP
being the Radiotelephone Operator Permit. The wallet card you refer to was
probably the Restricted Radio Telephone Operator Permit. However, there was
a wallet card called a license verification card that come along with the
First and Second Class licenses.
Here's a link to the straight scoop on all the commercial operator licenses:
http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/
GROL certainly still exists and the FCC very much has records. Duplicates
should be available but it won't be the blue certificate you were originally
issued. They are no longer issue the nice certificates but are printed on
paper similar to the amateur licenses.
----------------------
Lost, Stolen, Mutilated, or Destroyed Licenses
You may apply for a duplicate license by submitting FCC Forms 159 (Fee
Processing Form) and 605 according to the instructions printed on the 605
application.
A fee is required. Current information on the fee amount and filing location
can be found in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Fee Filing Guide, FCC
Form 1070Y, or by calling the FCC's Consumer Center toll free at
1-888-CALL-FCC (225-5322). The WTB Fee Filing Guide and FCC Form 1070Y are
also available from the fax-on-demand system by dialing (202) 418-0177 from
the handset of a fax machine.
-----------------------------
When the rules changed some time back, all holders of First and Second Class
Commercial Radiotelephone Licenses were issued lifetime General Radio
Operator Licenses.
You can still get a commercial radiotelegraph operator license.!
<r2000...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166281054.1...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Brian Hill
"Meat Plow" <me...@meatplow.local> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.12.16....@nntp.sun-meatplow.local...
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 09:39:20 -0600, Brian Hill Has Frothed:
> 80 meters? I swear to fucking god it's like listening to a CB.
> --
> Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2004
>
> COOSN-266-06-25794
Oh yea! Plow what the heck are you doing over here? I didn't know you were a
radio buff.
BH
BDK
Arky_Bo...@yahoo.com says...
That might make me listen again if he did, IMO, it hasn't been nearly as
fun since "Raincoat Charlie" used to key up and say something like,
"Break break for the white trash, trailer livin', Hitler worshipping,
cracker net!" Vic and the regulars would go off the deep end, and after
a little while, he would start up again, "Break BREAK for the Jew
Hating, KKK, hillbilly retardate net!!" I thought Harvey, who sounded
dead anyway, was going to have a stroke or something. Vic was asking for
his call, again and again. Was he really expecting him to give one?
A couple of times, either the "deliberate jammer" or the "illegally
operating station" would say something that would set Vic and his
minions off like my dogs do when the UPS guy bangs on the door.
I would be on the floor when someone would bait them into going to
attack mode. It was great.
BDK
BDK
Yep, I heard them say things to people who they thought were white that
made me cringe. When I did listen on the ham bands, the Extras and
Advanced hams were some of the worst, both in the racial crap, they
broke the rules deliberately, and seemed to think they were somehow
right because the had a ticket for 50-60 years. I know one who used to
ignore calls and deliberately talk over calls he didn't "know" on 2
meters. He got a letter warning him about it, and then whined about
being "picked on".
And yes, I passed the damn code almost 35 years ago. It did nothing but
turn me off from upgrading to a General. A few contacts and I was done,
I cant think of many more unpleasant things to listen to than CW. I
gave the novice rig back to the guy I was buying it from, and tossed the
license in a drawer. I don't even know my old call.
Sadly, as this point, I don't care about HF anymore.
BDK
hjs...@cs.com
He'sDoneItAgain wrote:
> Looks like "no-code" is finally here...
>
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269012A1.pdf
This sentence summarizes it very well: This change eliminates an
unnecessary regulatory burden that may discourage current amateur radio
operators from advancing their skills and participating more fully in
the benefits of amateur radio.
It's about 30 years too late, but a start in the right direction. Next
we have to eliminate the current test and replace it with something
that actually tests for skills that are important. A test that
combines knowlege of theory with the skills to safely setup and
courteously operate a station. Once potential ham passes that single
test he is granted full operating privileges on all amateur bands.
Currently licensed hams would be grandfathered in with full operating
privileges.
hjs...@cs.com
cbx wrote:
> Yeah, certain ethnic groups could not cut the code, so the FCC did the
> most illogical thing, they eliminated the code.
Which groups are those. Please provide an independent source.
> Same reason our
> schools now place in the 2nd 50 places in the world since 1964.
Nonsense.
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
>Yeah, certain ethnic groups could not cut the code, so the FCC did the
>most illogical thing, they eliminated the code
good greif get a life stop sitting on your brain
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
<kididdl...@nolikespam.com> wrote:
>He'sDoneItAgain <ag...@emanon.net> wrote in news:DUIgh.524$QU1.447
>@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:
>
>> Looks like "no-code" is finally here...
>>
>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269012A1.pdf
>
>Why I find the "no code" licensing troublesome.
>
>I first experienced ham radio at the age of 7. Now at two weeks short of
>52 I find the whole cw experience satisfying from a competitive
>perspective. Learning the code wasn't hard. Increasing my speed was the
>difficult part as most have also discovered.
>
>Did I whine or cry, did I hold my breath, did I toss a fit in front of
>the examiners? No, no and no!
wasn't hard for you
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
here here
BTW since it has become vaguely relavant I happen to white as well
>
>Regards,
>JS
John Kasupski
>This sentence summarizes it very well: This change eliminates an
>unnecessary regulatory burden that may discourage current amateur radio
>operators from advancing their skills and participating more fully in
>the benefits of amateur radio.
>
>It's about 30 years too late, but a start in the right direction.
I agree with all the above, including the time frame for when this
change should probably have been made to begin with.
>Next
>we have to eliminate the current test and replace it with something
>that actually tests for skills that are important. A test that
>combines knowlege of theory with the skills to safely setup and
>courteously operate a station. Once potential ham passes that single
>test he is granted full operating privileges on all amateur bands.
This approach would produce one class of license, one test, all or
nothing. I'm not sure that's in the best interests of the ARS. There
is something to be said for having an entry-level license and letting
people work their way up as their skills and experience increase.
Put another way, while there are 8-year olds who have made Extra,
they're the exception rather than the norm. We need to attract young
people to ham radio. Hitting 'em with a written test like the one for
Amateur Extra right out of the starting gate probably isn't going to
accomplish that.
>Currently licensed hams would be grandfathered in with full operating
>privileges.
So you're going to hand Extra privileges to everyone who currently has
a Novice, Technician, General, or Advanced? Well...I currently hold a
General class ticket, and would stand to gain significant additional
band segments on which to operate if I were to be grandfathered in at
Extra-level privileges. Nevertheless, I have to disagree with that.
The fact that the code test is being dropped does not affect the other
technical qualifications for holding a ticket.
John D. Kasupski, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York
http://kc2hmz.net
Phoon Hencman
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:32:01 -0500, He'sDoneItAgain <ag...@emanon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Looks like "no-code" is finally here...
>>
>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269012A1.pdf
>
> All the CBer's should be happy.
Nahhh, they STILL couldn't pass the written!
Phoon Hencman
>>> .
>>
>> They did a LONG time ago, Steve. That's how the multiple choice with
>> published answers came about.
>
> Even that will go by the wayside and they'll simply sign an 'X' at the
> bottom of
> a form.
>
> dxAce
> Michigan
> USA
I seriously doubt that.
Phoon Hencman
>
> You ever listen to some of the licensed imbeciles on the phone portion of
> 80 meters? I swear to fucking god it's like listening to a CB.
>
It's only one or two frequencies. Easy to avoid.
Phoon Hencman
There ARE more relevent modes today than morse. Then again, there will
ALWAYS be folks doing morse on the air so what's the problem????
Telamon
wrote:
> "helmsman" <helm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:glk7o2drvsc7mp788...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:32:01 -0500, He'sDoneItAgain
> > <ag...@emanon.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Looks like "no-code" is finally here...
> >>
> >>http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269012A1.pdf
> >
> > All the CBer's should be happy.
> >
>
> The ham bands sound like LIDville nowadays. Have you not been
> listening and the most dysfunctional newsgroups on Usenet are amateur
> topic groups.
I noticed this years ago. It was my hope that I could joint the
amateur antenna news group and learn something but found it populated
with a bunch of idiots that post there everyday with threads that go
into the hundreds. I've never seen such BS in my life even coming from a
politician.
> I feel sorry for the good hams that have to put up with the shit.
> They should make the test to where anyone with a IQ of less than 120
> can not apply. I remember listening to some pretty sharp guys on the
> ham bands when I was a kid. Learned a lot about propagation and
> antennas etc.. just listening to them. Now days you gotta dig for a
> good QSO. They should set a part of the hf bands for just CW
> operators and you can't operate unless you have a CW license and they
> should have a test to see if your a retarded LID and if so you get
> the jackoff spectrum. I mean why not?
Hams used to build at least some of their equipment. I think it should
be a requirement that you built your own transmitter that passes FCC
specifications to transmit. A prior requirement would be a real
electronics test where you have to solve problems on the test to show
the ability to build a compliant transmitter and antenna system to get a
license. Multiple choice questions are not enough.
Along with the electronics requirement would be test questions on
operator proficiency. There is no reason that marginal people can't be
eliminated from having a license. The bands would then be easier to
regulate and the nonsense would stop.
A person allowed a privilege should be required to show knowledge and
ability to get a license and then build the equipment to utilize a
frequency in this case. The present licensing situation is pointless in
my opinion. Most Hams can't fix their own equipment and they don't
understand how their antennas systems work so the country can't depend
on them when the chips are down.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
hjs...@cs.com wrote:
No way. What is the point of raising the bar if you let a bunch of
non-compliant people on the bands.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
dxAce
helmsman wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:32:01 -0500, He'sDoneItAgain <ag...@emanon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Looks like "no-code" is finally here...
> >
> >http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269012A1.pdf
>
> All the CBer's should be happy.
Amateur Electronic Supply (AES) will be opening up shops in every truck stop
across the country.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
hjs...@cs.com
John Kasupski wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2006 10:45:27 -0800, hjs...@cs.com wrote:
>
> >This sentence summarizes it very well: This change eliminates an
> >unnecessary regulatory burden that may discourage current amateur radio
> >operators from advancing their skills and participating more fully in
> >the benefits of amateur radio.
> >
> >It's about 30 years too late, but a start in the right direction.
>
> I agree with all the above, including the time frame for when this
> change should probably have been made to begin with.
>
> >Next
> >we have to eliminate the current test and replace it with something
> >that actually tests for skills that are important. A test that
> >combines knowlege of theory with the skills to safely setup and
> >courteously operate a station. Once potential ham passes that single
> >test he is granted full operating privileges on all amateur bands.
>
> This approach would produce one class of license, one test, all or
> nothing. I'm not sure that's in the best interests of the ARS. There
> is something to be said for having an entry-level license and letting
> people work their way up as their skills and experience increase.
It appears to be just another silly purposeless impediment. Once you
have proven that you can set up a station safely and operate
courteously how do the skills needed differ between one portion of a
band and another. Or, which are the skills that improve with time and
how does the current test gauge them.
>
> Put another way, while there are 8-year olds who have made Extra,
> they're the exception rather than the norm. We need to attract young
> people to ham radio. Hitting 'em with a written test like the one for
> Amateur Extra right out of the starting gate probably isn't going to
> accomplish that.
I suspect that if we took a zero-based approach to the question of
testing we might come up with something very different than the current
design. Which specific bits of information about radio theory and
operational skills are needed to give some level of assurance that the
proposed ham can operate successfully and safely.
The days of guys building a shack from scratch using surplus radio
equipment and components from the electrical supply house are largely
over. My sense is that the technical testing is geared in some manner
to that world.
>
> >Currently licensed hams would be grandfathered in with full operating
> >privileges.
>
> So you're going to hand Extra privileges to everyone who currently has
> a Novice, Technician, General, or Advanced? Well...I currently hold a
> General class ticket, and would stand to gain significant additional
> band segments on which to operate if I were to be grandfathered in at
> Extra-level privileges. Nevertheless, I have to disagree with that.
> The fact that the code test is being dropped does not affect the other
> technical qualifications for holding a ticket.
Not sure I understand your last point. But that may be from a lack of
caffeine on my part too....
hjs...@cs.com
Non-compliant with what exactly.
>
> --
> Telamon
> Ventura, California
Carter-k8vt
> Hams used to build at least some of their equipment.
...and many still do. Looked at any of the construction articles in QST
lately? (like for the last 15 or 20 years)
> I think it should be a requirement that you built your own
> transmitter that passes FCC specifications to transmit.
Why? And do you have *any* clue as to how complex modern transceivers
are? The test equipment to verify that it "passes FCC specifications to
transmit"? (Priced any spectrum analyzers lately?) Furthermore, why
build just the transmitter? Why wouldn't you require them to build their
receiver too?
> Most Hams can't fix their own equipment
You say "Most hams can't fix their own equipment". So what is your
point? Most modern equipment uses surface mount technology, which
requires 20 year old eyes and special equipment to solder/de-solder. How
many people can fix their own TVs/DVDs/VCRs? For that matter, can you
fix your own modern car? Why not? You have the privelege of having a
driver's license. Heck, to follow -your- logic, you should -build- your
own car.
> and they don't understand how their antennas systems work
Again, so what? Some hams are indeed engineers but plenty are mail
delivery persons or plumbers or any number of non-engineering
occupations that enjoy radio as a hobby. I happen to believe that is one
of the strengths of ham radio.
> so the country can't depend on them when the chips are down.
Well, there seemed to be a lot of good press and good buzz about the ham
radio performance during Katrina. Maybe you should do just a little
research before you tar -everyone- with the same brush.
Sorry, but you come across like a ham wannabee that couldn't cut the
mustard...(and just use a bag full of excuses as to why you never became
a ham).
Or, due to the thoughtlessness and foolishness of your statements, maybe
you are just trolling. :-(
73,
Carter
K8VT
cuh...@webtv.net
If that is true,those people over there at Pantex better watch out,they
could have almost ''wiped out Detroit''
A few weeks ago,I saw an eyeballing the Pantex plant at
www.cryptome.org/index.html
cuhulin
BruceMN44
rest of the international community. I think this is a step in the
correct direction. To those that view code testing as a filter for
keeping the ignorance out of Ham radio...look at the FCC sanctions
against Ham radio operators...the vast majority are against code
licensed operators, NOT the NCT's. I think that blows the pro-code's
position out of the water. The pro-code position was weak to begin
with...now their rally has been muted. Funny, I don't see "Slowcode"
anywhere in this newsgroup after the FCC decisons Friday. I am
learning the code now, and will use it one day, but because I want too.
Bruce
The Poet
Well, I dunno...
I'm not a ham, I'm a pirate.
'We don't need no frikken license, capiche?'
But I do use aged ham equipment, and I do fix my own... and often have
to learn something new each time I do it.
The new surface-mount stuff, I couldn't have repaired even when I DID
have twenty-year old eyes because my hands were never that steady.
'Plug and play' would be nice, but I suppose one wouldn't learn much
that way, other than how to prepare equipment to be shipped to the
repair shop, or how to shop for replacement eqpt, should that painful
necessity arise...
But preferring to operate in AM mode with plate modulation, more modern
equipment just can't be had at a reasonable price, so its Johnson for
me, along with its periodic failures and necessary self-service.
For the reason that the amateur service generates necessary equipment
of direct benefit to pirate broadcasters, I would want to see the
amateur service continue to survive and even flourish... but for those
of us who prefer AM to sideband, us musical afficionados, well, there
hasn't been much efficient ham equipment manufactured suitable for that
purpose in 30-40 years.
Just my own inane ramblings, as I don't really have a dog in this hunt
at the present.
'Fifteen men on the dead man's chest
Yo Ho Ho and a bottle of rum!'
The Poet aka John Poet aka domestic terrorist aka patriot
Brian Hill
"Meat Plow" <me...@meatplow.local> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.12.16....@nntp.sun-meatplow.local...
>
> --
> Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2004
>
> COOSN-266-06-25794
Well you old ham!
BH