IARU Says "Remove Code"

[K6UEY]

I was fully aware of the OO program was a recognized Auxilliary of the FCC, and their reports are regarded as official, but what I was not aware of until reading some of the posts here on QRZ was that there also must be a Pseu do spokesperson Aux. I admittedly have never seen a document making official recognition of this group, but #then navaigating the FCC webb site can be a task in it self. I do though see them freely making statements as to what the Commission has intended in the matter of decisions on various questions.Those that I have always thought input from the public was one of the determining factors. If matters of public and private decisions have already been predetermined maybe a heads up to a Congressional Oversite committee might be in order.
On the other hand, maybe the opposition has totally run out of inordinate innuendo and are forced to presupposition that they speak for the commission. I tend to think it is the latter as oposed to the former.
The great Winston Churchill once said "It is a mistake to look too far ahead. Only one link in the chain of destiny can be handled at a time."
ENJOY!! Learning is a refinement of one's culture.........73, # ORV
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It would be far better for those of us who like Morse to show people the magic about it then to cram it down their throats and then be surprised when most of them resent it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I guess you didn't read this sentence for comprehension? Did you notice the those of us? I like code. I also understand that the way to get people interested in it is to show them why we like it. You know, more flys with honey than vinegar.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N4ZN @ Sep. 23 2003)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
rediculous.

implimented,

I'll suck your beloved microphone.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

IMHO we should add a spelling test, and put a greater emphasis on 97.1(e).

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K6UEY @ Sep. 24 2003,01:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another future ham radio Operator to be proud of ......
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
There is your second mistake Dave ,who told you it was a Hobby? or didn't you bother to look up the basis and purpose ?? It does not say any thing about being a hobby in part 97 maybe you are confusing it with part95.............
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Doesn't say anything about hobby in part 97, either.

Doesn't say anything about hobby in the R/C rules, either.

It's a hobby.

[n0klu]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Sep. 24 2003,20:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">......You know, more flys with honey than vinegar......[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
But, Dave, some of us like our flys roasted and pickled. haha http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

( I couldn't resist the comment) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[N0TTW]

To AC33AC <-- What is your callsign? Are you scared to say?

Your post makes more of what is going on. Your statements in 1 and 2 are one in the same. So let me set the record straight.

1: The restructuring of the licenses during '98 were to provide a pool "of technical people" for this SERVICE!! The FCC DIDN'T hint at the concept of IF the code should be dropped, but rather their requirement to keep it under international aggreement. I was part of the movement. Now I regret it and it should go back to the way it was.

2: The US delegates (ARRL) voted AGAINST the requirement of dropping the code at the WRC-03 conferance. The voice you speak of said "Keep the code"

3: The IARU stated it was an OPTION for countries to drop the code. Doesn't mean ALL countries will! See previous post for numbers that did.

4: The NCVEC went against the wishes of the ARRL and filed the petition. NCVEC is headed by W5YI, who is also on the BOD of NCI, a conflict of interest. W5YI has interest in this issue. See previous post.

5: The only reason the FCC trust the NCVEC is because they are a part of the ARRL. The most vocal group for US in the amateur community ! I don't think the FCC realized that the NCVEC (IE: W5YI) has a financial interest in the outcome of their petition.

6: The code is not dead!! Not by a long shot!! FCC rules even gives the code a boost under 97.1©. Look it up and see for yourself. See the words "skill" and "art". My wife is learning it as we speak. If she keeps doing it as well as she does, she'll pass those who REFUSE to do it.

7: If the FCC sees more comments "for the code" they will "assume" that is what the amateur community wants. So yes, it's like voting.

Sorry for bursting your bubble.

By the way, there's always MARS if individuals want HF privileges. No code needed or such.

Chris N0TTW

[kg6pog]

I would just like to point out that Morse Code goes back to 1833 and I for one think it's seen it's day.
Phone on H.F. has no relationship to code and the international community seems to understand that point.
Even people that have no interest in the hobby cannot see any reason to keep the very out dated form of communication a requirement for obtaining a Ham license.
C.W. will not make you a better phone operator on H.F, a mode of communication that goes back very near 200 years.
Again no one is talking about taking C.W. away or those areas reserved for it, depriving those who enjoy using it. But simply eliminating C.W. as a requirement to obtain a license to use some of the H.F. frequencies.

I have read the proposal and did not see it mentioned anywhere that the C.W. areas
be removed, but that those areas that code plus tech's have full phone rights on those
frequencies that novices and code tech's already are designated to use.

I doubt that the fear of a flood of C.B. types has any validity, as long as there is a test involved that will be enough of a deterrent.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US delegates (ARRL) voted AGAINST the requirement of dropping the code at the WRC-03 conferance. The voice you speak of said "Keep the code"
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The ARRL is not the US delgates to the WRC. The United States sent roughly 150 delegates to WRC,None of whom officially represented the ARRL.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
3: The IARU stated it was an OPTION for countries to drop the code. Doesn't mean ALL countries will! See previous post for numbers that did.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

One of the things that puzzles and amuses me about the IARU is that the administrative council, composed mostly of ARRL members, voted to recommend that all countries drop the code requirement.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
4: The NCVEC went against the wishes of the ARRL and filed the petition. NCVEC is headed by W5YI, who is also on the BOD of NCI, a conflict of interest. W5YI has interest in this issue. See previous post.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The ARRL abstained on the NCVEC vote.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
5: The only reason the FCC trust the NCVEC is because they are a part of the ARRL. The most vocal group for US in the amateur community ! I don't think the FCC realized that the NCVEC (IE: W5YI) has a financial interest in the outcome of their petition.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

NCVEC is not part of the ARRL, the ARRL VEC is one of the 16(?) members of NCVEC.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
7: If the FCC sees more comments "for the code" they will "assume" that is what the amateur community wants. So yes, it's like voting.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You mean it's like a popularity poll, but no, the FCC doesn't weigh comments that way; especially electronic filings.

The FCC is required by law to weigh the merit of the arguments -- and it has already rejected all of the pro-code arguments.

[N0TTW]

Excuse me? I think that many of those folks in Region 2 are ARRL folks. And it's still an option for the FCC to decide to drop the code or not. Public opinion still means something to the FCC.

Your quotes contradict each other in this issue. You need to look at what you said. The ARRL has more muscle than you think.

Yes, the ARRL did abstain from the comments of the NCVEC. There was a heated debate about the NCVEC decision. They (NCVEC) are NOT a representative of the amateur community as a whole. Those serving on the NCVEC are self-serving. Again, W5YI as an example.

Do you deny that?

Marty, you need to spend more time in this than you have. I'm going back to your license time of 1+ year. I was a NOVICE longer than you have been an operator. So I see your comments coming from emotion, rather than fact. If you were license for 10, 15 or 20 years, maybe I could see your point. But, your a NEWBIE, plain and simple. You haven't learned enough of this to make a good judgement based on your experience. The arguement you try to do, is down playing the objectives of the code's usefullness is as though you've been doing this (the code) for a long time.

Yeh Right!!

Those comments don't mean you're less of an operator, just means your inexperienced in this service of amateur radio.

Another question, where has the FCC published what it's deciding factor on this code as "having no merit" in certain arguments? Is this a presumption on your behalf?

Chris N0TTW

[KG4JYE]

Chris, I hate to break it to you but AE6IP is right...the FCC doesn't care what the hell we want. #It all comes down to the numbers. #The FCC collects "X" amount of dollars per license issued. #If they drop the CW requirement, they can then up the "X factor". #Cut and Dry....How else did you think Bush was gonna pay for his private war.

Gov. Howard Dean M.D. for President.....paid for by ME!

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (amnman @ Sep. 24 2003,23:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Excuse me? I think that many of those folks in Region 2 are ARRL folks. And it's still an option for the FCC to decide to drop the code or not. Public opinion still means something to the FCC.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I don't understand what you are trying to say with the 1st two sentences. Please clarify.

I don't recall saying that the FCC didn't still have the decision.

public opinion on the ARS is probably oh, that still exists? The FCC is certainly aware of this.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Your quotes contradict each other in this issue. You need to look at what you said. The ARRL has more muscle than you think.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I'm sorry, I don't see any contradictions in what I said -- other than the contradictory behavior of the IARU that I said I was puzzled over. Please point them out to me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Yes, the ARRL did abstain from the comments of the NCVEC. There was a heated debate about the NCVEC decision. They (NCVEC) are NOT a representative of the amateur community as a whole. Those serving on the NCVEC are self-serving. Again, W5YI as an example.

Do you deny that?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I don't recall anyone saying that NCVEC is representative of the whole community. #Nor do I recall their petition making that claim. They are representatives of the VECs.

I don't understand the issue around W5YI's self interest. #Everyone who has petitioned the FCC in this matter or commented on a petition is acting out of their own interest. #So?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Marty, you need to spend more time in this than you have. I'm going back to your license time of 1+ year. I was a NOVICE longer than you have been an operator.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

If there's something wrong with my arguments, than an experience operator should have no trouble pointing that out, then.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
So I see your comments coming from emotion, rather than fact.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

um, most of my comments in the post you are responding to were corrections of your errors of fact. The ARRL is not the US delegate to WRC; the NCVEC is not part of the ARRL; the ARRL did notvote on the WRC change; the ARRL did not vote on the NCVEC petition, it abstained.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
If you were license for 10, 15 or 20 years, maybe I could see your point. But, your a NEWBIE, plain and simple.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

<sigh>it doesn't work that way in the real world. #Unless I were to make an argument based on claimed epertise, then all comments like this one are doing is making ad hominem attacks.

My arguments stand and fall on their own merits. #Trying to discredit me as an arguer is merely admiting that you can't successfully challenge the arguments.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
You haven't learned enough of this to make a good judgement based on your experience. The arguement you try to do, is down playing the objectives of the code's usefullness is as though you've been doing this (the code) for a long time.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The issue on the table is not the code; it's the usefulness of testing the code.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Yeh Right!!
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Well that's certainly a factual, unemotional argument.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Those comments don't mean you're less of an operator,
just means your inexperienced in this service of amateur radio.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

And yet, I find myself having to correct errors of fact from far more experienced operators. #Doesn't speak very highly for experience, does it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Another question, where has the FCC published what it's deciding factor on this code as "having no merit" in certain arguments? Is this a presumption on your behalf?

Chris N0TTW[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

This has been discussed several times on this webboard. I'm sure any experienced ham would have no trouble locating the reference to the relevant FCC Finding and Order, so I won't insult you by posting a pointer to it.

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4JYEdave @ Sep. 24 2003,23:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Chris, I hate to break it to you but AE6IP is right...the FCC doesn't care what the hell we want. #It all comes down to the numbers. #The FCC collects "X" amount of dollars per license issued. #If they drop the CW requirement, they can then up the "X factor". #Cut and Dry....How else did you think Bush was gonna pay for his private war.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The FCC collect zero dollars per amateur license issued. The fee collected by VEs is a fee for the test, not the license; and the FCC receives none of the money. (See 97.527)

The FCC cares about why you want what you want. A compelling argument for retaining code testing will outweigh a less compelling argument for removing it. To date, such a compelling argument does not seem to have been made to the FCC; but that's for them to decide.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (amnman @ Sep. 25 2003,00:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NCVEC is headed by W5YI, who is also on the BOD of NCI, a conflict of interest.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
By that reasoning, the NCVEC should also have no members who are on the board of the ARRL.

Why is NCI bad and ARRL good?

The ARRL is also self serving in the way it wants to keep the code.

I need not commment on the rest of your post as others have done a better job putting it in perspective.

[K0ZZE]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5ux @ Sep. 23 2003,13:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The old ones did not start this. #We were happily operating our radios when a huge group of cbers led by big business started knocking down the walls down and destroying our hobby. #You call cw a barrier. #If it were a barrier, 4 year old kids would not be passing it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
well studies have shown that most 4 year olds are smarter than people over 30. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[WA9SVD]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (amnman @ Sep. 24 2003,21:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To AC33AC <-- What is your callsign? Are you scared to say?

Your post makes more of what is going on. Your statements in 1 and 2 are one in the same. So let me set the record straight.

1: The restructuring of the licenses during '98 were to provide a pool "of technical people" for this SERVICE!! The FCC DIDN'T hint at the concept of IF the code should be dropped, but rather their requirement to keep it under international aggreement. I was part of the movement. Now I regret it and it should go back to the way it was.

2: The US delegates (ARRL) voted AGAINST the requirement of dropping the code at the WRC-03 conferance. The voice you speak of said "Keep the code"

3: The IARU stated it was an OPTION for countries to drop the code. Doesn't mean ALL countries will! See previous post for numbers that did.

4: The NCVEC went against the wishes of the ARRL and filed the petition. NCVEC is headed by W5YI, who is also on the BOD of NCI, a conflict of interest. W5YI has interest in this issue. See previous post.

5: The only reason the FCC trust the NCVEC is because they are a part of the ARRL. The most vocal group for US in the amateur community ! I don't think the FCC realized that the NCVEC (IE: W5YI) has a financial interest in the outcome of their petition.

6: The code is not dead!! Not by a long shot!! FCC rules even gives the code a boost under 97.1©. Look it up and see for yourself. See the words "skill" and "art". My wife is learning it as we speak. If she keeps doing it as well as she does, she'll pass those who REFUSE to do it.

7: If the FCC sees more comments "for the code" they will "assume" that is what the amateur community wants. So yes, it's like voting.

Sorry for bursting your bubble.

By the way, there's always MARS if individuals want HF privileges. No code needed or such.

Chris N0TTW[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Chris, (N0TTW)

I hope you merely used a poor choice of words. There was no move at WRC-'03 for a "REQUIREMENT to DROP the code;" the resolution was to drop the requirement FOR the code, with the option for each country to decide itself whether to keep or eliminate the code requirement.

The NCVEC is NOT part of the ARRL. The ARRL VE's and VEC's ARE part of NCVEC, just as W5YI VE's and VEC's are part of NCVEC. The VEC system was setup so that no one organization or group (not ARRL, not W5YI) had a "monopoly" on the VE Syetem.

While I don't necessarily like it, I'm afraid the FCC WILL do away with the code requirement. When the last restructuring occured, (when the code requirement was reduced to the single 5 WPM Element 1) The FCC implied (or at least seemed to imply) in their ruling that the only reason they were retaining a Code requirement was because of the International Treaty that made Morse proficiency mandatory for HF operation. Now that the REQUIREMENT no longer exists, it would mean less paperwork and effort on the part of the FCC to remove Element 1 from the Amateur requirements. THAT (IMHO!) will be their deciding factor, in spite of all the impassioned pleas and rationalized logic either way.

So yes, we live in interesting times. It will be interesting to see how the issue finally plays out. But as a "Fraternity," the U.S. Amateur rules will have to realign with the other nations, NOT to bow to their pressure, but for the sake of compatibility with the rest of the Amateur world. It is NOT a competition to see who keeps the Morse requirement the longest, but "what is in the best interest of ALL Amateur Radio Operators," not just those in the U.S. Again IMHO.

And CW will NOT die out! There will ALWAYS be those that choose that mode of operation.

[N0MLR]

As of Monday I knew C Q E V O S of the Morse Code.
On Tuesday I started with Morse Academy to learn the rest.
In four days I have finished learning the rest of the Alphabet all Punctuation and the Numbers.
I have one month to pick up the speed to around 7 wpm for the test. I think I will make it.
I said before I didnt learn the code not because I couldn't but because I chose not to.
In four days and only practicing 2 hours a day I have it down.
I guess I am soon to graduate from the Lowly Tech to the General.
And yu thought I was a no good CBer LOL. How long did it take ou to get the full group down?

Greg Dunn / N0MLR / NCI # 1756 and soon to be a General,heck I may even take the Extra while I am at it.

[k4eez]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n3mvf @ Sep. 14 2003,19:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How is this horse standing? It's been beaten to death.

Pro or con, this horse is old.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
where there's always new commers to the hobby and C.W remins, there will always be a new horse to beat up on
"the sky is not falling,,,, We are just growing"

Get It ? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif the horse is still in the field standing up

[n1pmb]

Stop crying and learn the code only five words a minute #anyone can do that . Remember they already dropped it from 20 down to five....Don N1PMB

[AE6IP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB2SEO @ Sep. 15 2003,21:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would habitually write on a Math teachers wall..

those who cannot do-teach[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Stephen Hawking is an excellent teacher.

So's JAW.

Guess you didn't do so well in math?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[K1MKF]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0MLR @ Sep. 27 2003,12:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In four days I have finished learning the rest of the Alphabet all Punctuation and the Numbers.
I have one month to pick up the speed to around 7 wpm for the test. I think I will make it.
I said before I didnt learn the code not because I couldn't but because I chose not to.
In four days and only practicing 2 hours a day I have it down.
I guess I am soon to graduate from the Lowly Tech to the General.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Congrats! You will soon be deemed worthy by the many 5 wpm General and Extras out there. Unfortunately, you will never be worthy to those that passed the 13 or 20 wpm tests. But, it's not your fault. The FCC won't let you prove yourself worthy any longer.

And this is the country that denounced classes in society!

[N3TTN]

AG4YO wrote: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The wee mite spunkies speak,
a tappin their bitty spunky feet,
thumpin' the tattered time away,
the'r tweetle tummy voice say,

Ne'er the tap of brassy tip,
a timp tom tone er pipey pip,
t'er not a-spendin spunky time
a learn'n tha brassy tappin rhyme

wi' little beady eyes a-pop
a wish'in, pray'in, the world'd stop,
an n'er ta spin a spinnin' feet
w'out the spunky pipin peep

a talkin the spiff a spunky pip,
yak a yak a spunky skip
an wee spunkies hand i' hand,
talkin' ta'other way spunky lands

such a grin and grandy day
wh'n spunkys ers a playin play
wi' tinty twiny twomps a cheep
won' tha be a mem'ry ta keep?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


I don't know what it is you have been smoking, but you had better STOP, it's beginning to effect that brain synapse thing.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[K0ZZE]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N3TTN @ Oct. 24 2003,12:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AG4YO wrote: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The wee mite spunkies speak,
a tappin their bitty spunky feet,
thumpin' the tattered time away,
the'r tweetle tummy voice say,

Ne'er the tap of brassy tip,
a timp tom tone er pipey pip,
t'er not a-spendin spunky time
a learn'n tha brassy tappin rhyme

wi' little beady eyes a-pop
a wish'in, pray'in, the world'd stop,
an n'er ta spin a spinnin' feet
w'out the spunky pipin peep

a talkin the spiff a spunky pip,
yak a yak a spunky skip
an wee spunkies hand i' hand,
talkin' ta'other way spunky lands

such a grin and grandy day
wh'n spunkys ers a playin play
wi' tinty twiny twomps a cheep
won' tha be a mem'ry ta keep?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


I don't know what it is you have been smoking, but you had better STOP, it's beginning to effect that brain synapse thing.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
good god almighty, he needs to share dont you think? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif