AM Under Attack

Brian Carling bcarling at CFL.RR.COM
Mon Jun 23 09:01:25 EDT 2003

On 22 Jun 2003 at 23:19, Colburn wrote:

> This whole thing started with the problems created by wide-SSB ops who
> refused to be considerate of others, that was followed by a proposal
> by a couple of Hams to ask the FCC to do what no one else was able to
> do -- force the selfish to be considerate -- and somehow someone
> somewhere along the line distorted it into a purported attack on AM.

No I did not distort it doc.

It IS an attack on AM because it requires a reduction in bandwidth to 5.6 kHz.

Like it or not, that is the fact that you are disputing.

The record bears it out. You however, see what you want to see.

The fact that I chose to focus on the lesser of the two aspects of the proposal does
not lessen its impact on AM ops.

You can harp on and dance around the topic all you want,
but my point still stands.

AM Under Attack

Those were MY words and I stand by them.

I am not going to continue this foolishness with you any more.

Go ahead sir, you can have the last word, no matter how far
off the topic you want to make it. Only please don't put
any words into my mouth that I didn't say!

73 - Brian, AF4K

This list is a public service of the City of Tempe, Arizona

Subscription control -
Archives -

More information about the Boatanchors mailing list