Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11634 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2003 09:06:48 -0000 Received: from netmail02.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.221) by mailstore with SMTP; 16 Mar 2003 09:06:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 24875 invoked by uid 10001); 16 Mar 2003 09:06:48 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by netmail02.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 16 Mar 2003 09:06:48 -0000 X-SQ: A Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.12) id 18uU4X-0002OC-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 09:04:49 +0000 Received: from [212.1.130.143] (helo=smtp-1.visp.telinco.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18uU4S-0002O3-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 09:04:44 +0000 Received: from [80.40.12.153] (helo=hughspc) by smtp-1.visp.telinco.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 18uU4R-0006g0-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 09:04:44 +0000 Message-ID: <000001c2eb9a$f61bc060$990c2850@hughspc> From: "Hugh" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <01C2E966.68104D30.g4jnt@thersgb.net> <003201c2ea71$3706ed00$20c5e150@hughspc> <001f01c2eb0d$9bd93200$045bfea9@RSGB613192> Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 08:28:43 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: LF: Re: Re: Re: RE: The leT/A of the law Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.6 required=5.0tests=REFERENCESversion=2.50 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Andy, I am terribly sorry, I confused you with somebody else. There are no scurrilous fibs and the fantasy is all in my head. I agree with what you say about the scientific purposes of the transmissions, and that is really the point I was trying to make - that the "regulations" need to be brought into line with what we are doing. This was done to allow packet radio, and APRS so why not QRSS on LF (or any other frequency for that matter ?) 73 Hugh M0WYE