🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 18:25:52 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
<nots...@invalid.org> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 15:00:30 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>
>wrote: 
>
>> On 2018-02-11, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11 Feb 2018 10:49:36 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2018-02-10, Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> [22 lines snipped]
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I love Number Stations. No idea what their purpose is today, just
>>>>>> loving them. :-)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Could put up my own station, announcing random numbers. Having
>>>>>> some three letter agencies wasting their time investigating. *g*
>>>>> 
>>>>> *laugh8 What a marvellous idea!!!
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've a radio amatuer licence - I wonder what the authorities would
>>>>> think of a synthesised voice announcing random 5 letter groups?
>>>> 
>>>> In the U.S., which I know you aren't here, its illegal for cryptic
>>>> coded messages to be sent by ham radio operators.
>> 
>> Same here. But if it's random, it isn't "cryptic coded".   :o)
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Saw an argument about this on a ham radio forum. Was digital 'plain
>>>> speech' ? What about CW ? etc. I just ignored it except for randomly
>>>> reading one or two posts.
>>>
>>> Surprised they're still arguing this.
>> 
>> Radio amateurs are the ultimate barrack-room lawyers.
>> 
>> 
>Top tip:
>Do *not* get involved with uk.radio.amateur or uk.legal

It never ceases to amaze me how non-lawyers will argue to death points
that the courts have long since nailed down.