Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Interesting\s+quote\s+\.\.\.\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Interesting\s+quote\s+\.\.\.\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] Interesting quote ... (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:54:54 -0600; ARRL has analyzed the regulatory limitations as part of a comprehensive effort to make more efficient the use of those HF allocations, especially with respect to encouraging further experimentation a; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00080.html (6,994 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] Interesting quote ... (score: 1): Author: Ron Kolarik <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>; Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:59:17 -0600; You could always ask your directors for clarification, there's a board meeting Jan 15-16 by the way. It is a bit odd though, all the references to protecting narrow band just don't make sense......ye; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00081.html (7,616 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] Interesting quote ... (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:18:46 -0500; Just more ARRL double talk about digital modes. They want to expand the RTTY/CW allocations when it suits their needs (and it is needed on 80 meters). However, they still pursue RM11708 to allow comm; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-01/msg00082.html (9,025 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]