Yes!

[harrisons1 at TEN-NASH.TEN.K12.TN.US]

great story.licensed 28 yrs..es  i can support ur position.
not gud at cw, but i luv it - i find it challenging, rewarding es thrilling.

73, kv4f, sherman  in east tn.

>From n1mm at usa.pipeline.com (Tom Wagner)  Wed Jun 26 23:33:44 1996
From: n1mm at usa.pipeline.com (Tom Wagner) (Tom Wagner)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 22:33:44 GMT
Subject: burial of coax
Message-ID: <199606262233.WAA24415 at pipe6.t1.usa.pipeline.com>

I use steel wool for this application.  So far, so good. 
 
73, 
Tom 
________________________________________________________________________ 
 
On Jun 26, 1996 08:04:17, 'stephen.tobe at utoronto.ca (Stephen S. Tobe)'
wrote: 
 
 
>another problem with polypipe is the entry of rodents. they  
>seem to find polypipe a gud place to set up house. stuffing  
>the ends with fibreglass insulation discourages this, but  
>there are some determined rodents in my area!

>From steve.steltzer at paonline.com (WF3T)  Thu Jun 27 04:33:34 1996
From: steve.steltzer at paonline.com (WF3T) (WF3T)
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 00:33:34 -0300
Subject: K1ZZ on WRC-99

Gentlemen,
        As I found out from the following reply from Dave, and you have
already seen from K3ZO's post, WRC-99 and Mendelsohn's position letter are
not necessarily connected, although they concern the same issue. And IMHO,
all of this is contest related eventually. If we don't have spectrum, or
what we do have is so full of garbage it's virtually unusable, there won't
be any more contesting to discuss. Here is K1ZZ's reply to my original
letter, posted with his permission:

>Dear Steven:
>
>Thank you for your comments.
>
>There is no proposal being considered to eliminate the Morse code 
>requirement for an FCC license to operate in the HF amateur bands, and 
>consideration of such a proposal will not be timely for at least a few more 
>years.
>
>What is happening, is that we are preparing Amateur Radio positions 
>regarding various issues likely to be raised at the 1999 ITU World 
>Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-99), one of which is to drop the 
>international requirement for Morse testing. Even if that were to occur, 
>there would be no automatic change in the FCC rules. Each administration 
>would simply be free to decide for itself whether or not to maintain the 
>requirement.
>
>For WRC-99, the only relevant question concerning Morse code is this: Let's 
>say I am a telecommunications administrator in a developing country that has 
>few radio amateurs. What arguments can you offer to persuade me that it is a 
>good idea for my country to obligate itself for the next 20 years or so, as 
>a matter of international treaty, to administer Morse code examinations to 
>radio amateurs? You might be able to persuade me that I ought to have a 
>Morse requirement for my licensees as a matter of domestic policy, but why 
>would I want to be obligated to do so with no ability to relieve the 
>obligation in the future, short of the holding of another international 
>conference?
>
>That is the only question with regard to the Morse code that is relevant in 
>the WRC-99 context, and finding an answer to it is the problem facing those 
>preparing Amateur Radio positions for WRC-99 who might wish to retain the 
>provision. Please note that it has nothing to do with whether an 
>administration might want to continue the requirement for their own 
>licensees. That is a separate question that may or may not arise later, 
>perhaps around the year 2002, depending on what happens on the issue in 
>1999. What the United States does then with regard to licensing requirements 
>will be determined through the usual domestic rulemaking process, and with 
>the usual ARRL involvement.
>
>Bear in mind that the US could have established a codeless class of amateur 
>license anytime after the Atlantic City Conference of 1947. It did not 
>choose to do so until 1991.
>
>I hope these observations are helpful in putting the issue in perspective.
>
>73,
>David Sumner, K1ZZ
>ARRL HQ
>


        So, as you can see, if we are able to convince the majority of
member countries that there are good reasons to keep the code requirement in
the treaty, it will make the issue a moot point in the US for the next 20
years or so.  While I (and many others) can easily come up with many good
arguments in favor of keeping it in this country, quite frankly, considering
the state of technology today, the only three I can come up with in the
above context is that 

1. Morse is an international language, enabling communications between
persons     who do not speak any other common language.
2. The fact that CW can get through with low power, temporary antennas, etc.
in    an emergency much better than SSB.
3. In order to have the Amateur Radio resources to depend on, every country
has    a stake in insuring the availability of quality spectrum, both for
training     and use in actual emergencies.

        Dave has asked us a question, how do we convince them? Or is it even
really necessary to maintain the international requirement, are there
compelling reasons to let it up to each individual country? There are a lot
better minds than mine on this reflector. So here's the food for thought,
have at it.
                                                                        73,
                                                                        Stev
e      

*\*  steve.steltzer at paonline.com (WF3T)  *\*
*\*        Harley Davidson Inc.          *\*


>From donovanf at sgate.com (Frank Donovan)  Thu Jun 27 02:21:20 1996
From: donovanf at sgate.com (Frank Donovan) (Frank Donovan)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 21:21:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Call reassignment - W1TS
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.94.960626211941.21111C-100000 at jekyll.sgate.com>

I sure do!
Don's specialty was working Asian stations, long before the advent of huge
JA pileups in DX contests!

73!
Frank
W3LPL
donovanf at sgate.com

On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, Assarabowski, Richard wrote:
> 
> One of the CW field day ops wore the call badge of W1TS -- anyone remember 
> Don Mix as a daily regular on 20m CW?