Fw: fcc lied about ga

bill.lumnitzer at paonline.com bill.lumnitzer at paonline.com
Thu Nov 14 12:49:05 EST 1996

 Fa> I think to be fair to all involved the whole process should be re-run 
 Fa> properly and random as the FCC stated it would.  I hope the ARRL
 Fa> would    investigate this further, But knowing some of the odd things
 Fa> that have    occurred with the ARRL and the FCC in the past I would not
 Fa> count on it.

Yeah, well, we all expected a fair process in the 1974 (or was it 1976?)
pick-your-call program too, but I heard that a "donation" to a key FCC
employee (who later served time) was key to receiving your preferred call!

If they re-run the current process, maybe they should also re-run 1974! ;)

73 Bill N6CQ (my 25th choice!)

>From PGENTRY at sbbs.net (PGENTRY)  Thu Nov 14 17:53:56 1996
From: PGENTRY at sbbs.net (PGENTRY) (PGENTRY)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 11:53:56 -0600
Subject: Re[2]: SS ck, club call??
Message-ID: <00007C5F.3115 at sbbs.net>

     And doesn't W1AF always sign their club's check, something in the 
     early 1910's?
     Paul  K9PG ex WX9E

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: SS ck, club call??
Author:  blckhole at ripco.com at Internet
Date:    11/14/96 11:25 AM

Robert Penneys wrote:
> Does he give the check year for his own license, or the club's?
Back in the "old days" we used the U of IL club station (W9YH) in SS a 
bunch.  We always signed the clubs check.  I think it was 1914 - that 
ALWAYS threw 'em off...
PROBE ELECTRONICS 100 Higgins Road, Park Ridge IL 60068 USA 
Keith J. Morehouse /  W9RM  / Society of Midwest Contesters 
847-696-2828  FAX: 847-698-2045  e-mail: blckhole at ripco.com 

>From jtolbert at gremlan.org (Jamie Tolbert)  Thu Nov 14 17:48:04 1996
From: jtolbert at gremlan.org (Jamie Tolbert) (Jamie Tolbert)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 12:48:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NOALOX and Vanity Calls
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9611141201.A25649-0100000 at sprite>

The multiple guess approach to the cw test has made it easier for some 
but look at my example (I am amshamed to say its true): When I went for 
my 20 wpm test it was still fill in the blanks. I copied the message 
quite well however when it came time to answer the questions for whatever 
reason (nervous, anxious or just plain dumb) I really screwed up. The 
message was somewhat as follows: wb1abc de w4xyz rgr fred and thanks for 
the call bt ur rst is 568 and name here is albert...(rest deleted) Now 
for the test What is the sending operators callsign? ok no problem here 
its w4xyz...What is the receiving ops name..ok no problem here its wb1abc 
...What is the sending ops name?  ok its fred....When the instructors 
graded this they just laughed...luckily I didnt miss anymore...sent in 
for new call before the 2x1's ran out in 3 land and received WW3S...now 
all the old 2x1's are trading in for 1x2's...gonna miss them in the next 
wpx contest...73 Jamie WW3S

>From iadiahfd at netins.net (Larry Lindblom)  Thu Nov 14 18:04:59 1996
From: iadiahfd at netins.net (Larry Lindblom) (Larry Lindblom)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 12:04:59 -0600 (CST)
Subject: The FCC Lied -Reply
Message-ID: <199611141804.MAA31165 at worf.netins.net>

At 10:18 AM 11/14/96 -0500, AE4KY wrote:
>Naturally, it appears from reading comments here, that those that got
vanities >do not want it to be re-done.  But those that didnt may have a
different >perspective.

So just as it happens in a contest there are those who win (got a call they
wanted) and those who get stomped on (did't get a call they wanted).  Seems
to me that flames to this reflector only serve to pit the winners against
those who lost in the 1996 GAVCC (i.e., the Great American Vanity Callsign
Contest).  Re-running the vanity calls will switch some from the "I won" to
the "I lost" column, and generate more flames.  
Does anyone know of a person at the FCC who deliberatley withheld
information for profit or who profited by influencing the issuing of a
vanity callsign?  Does anyone know of a ham who influenced the issuance of a
vanity call.  If so this person needs to go public with names and facts.  If
so punish those involved, but don't rerun the program as that will punish
many who do not deserve to be punished.  

E-mail to your favorite federal politician, the ARRL, and even the FCC will
probably have more impact than flames to this reflector.  Flames here might
serve one purpose and that is "threauptic release" of hostility or
frustration. But a better way to get rid of those feelings is is a good run
or stomping your way thru a pile up in the next contest.  Maybe you'll even
stomp on the pesron who got the vanity call you wanted!  

Maybe this vanity thing was all wrong.  Gee, only $30 for ten years?  I
believe we still have a large federal debt, if so maybe what we need is a
vanity callsign auction.  Thats right' restart the whole process over and
let everyone bid for their favorite call.  Maybe we could pay off the
national debt with the proceeds. (This paragraph is written in jest, but if
they ever auction ham frequencies I'm taking out a loan and selling the farm
to bid on 14.195 and 3.795).

Life would sure be great if we got everything we wanted.  If that were true
I would purchase my first lottery ticket and collect a few million $$.  If
that were true I'd of worked them all on 160-10.  If that were true everyone
would have received the call they wanted, but I can't seem to find any
guarantee that we will always get what we want.

I suppose this will only serve to keep the flames rolling in.  Maybe I could
swith to no mail for a while or unsubcribe, but if I'd done that I would of
missed the message about the new "contest rules" reflector.


WA0ETC, established in January of 1963 as WN0ETC
Larry Lindblom, iadiahfd at netins.net

I remember seeing a post on this reflector saying the vanity program would
randomly pick applications and assign calls.  But, who first posted this and
what was the source?  Was if from an FCC press release, a clerk-typist at
the FCC, one of the staff at ARRL, or is this a rumor that got out oh hand? 



>From k0wa at southwind.net (Lee Buller)  Thu Nov 14 18:29:33 1996
From: k0wa at southwind.net (Lee Buller) (Lee Buller)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 12:29:33 -0600
Subject: Redux on NOALOX and Vanity Calls
Message-ID: < at southwind.net>

Ladies and Gentlemen....

I feel I need to explain my post about Vanity Calls and NOALOX.

Although I place some of my own opinion in the post concerning Extra class
licenses from different decades...the point of the post was this....

The FCC for years refused to issue vanity calls.  Now they are.  Seems there
are a lot of unhappy people griping.  Ham radio should be happy that they
would even consider it again.  They hated doing it in the 70s.

Put some NOALOX (what a wonderfull conversation that was too) on your
bruised egos and get the current flowing again....make the
connection....fill in the blanks....

It nothing to do with slamming people's
licenses...calls...intelligence...nor gender.  The post was to make light of
all the griping by placing NOALOX where it counts.

I'm going home to bed and pull the covers over my head!

k0wa at southwind.net

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list