[ILHam] 2 Illinois sections

[Tim C]

I can understand your reasoning behind that Scott.  I would think that the
place to bring it up to would be with the ARRL and the Division Director,
Dick Isley, W9GIG, w9gig at arrl.org   My thoughts weren't really aimed at your
post but to Wally's that followed your original post.  Mike does a great
service here by giving us in IL a place where we can communicate our
thoughts to any IL ham that is signed up on this list and it does not have
any thing to do with Illinois as a section of the ARRL.  I get the same
messages that everyone else does here that concern nets in northern IL and
if they are posted from any other part of the state that I cant reach on
VHF/UHF, so I just delete them and go on.  It doesn't make this reflector a
bad place because there are other messages about stuff that I do want to
know about that are posted.
Tim, KB9FBI

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Millick"
Subject: Re: [ILHam] 2 Illinois sections


> With the length of the state for contesters we find that propagation is
> different particulary on the VHF bands   This along with the population in
> one area makes it real unfair for contesters whereas other states have
> multiple sections with the amount of hams we have   THis is my primary
> interest in multiple sections for Illinois. I would like to see the top
> third or half as the northern section and the south as the rest   An if
> this is not the place to bring it up where else? This has nothing to do
> with the present director but think how much more fun in contesting it
> would be to have the two sections. Look at the other states and
comparisons
> and think about it
>
> At 07:26 AM 9/24/2004, you wrote:
> >While the numbers may indicate that based on population verses the amount
of
> >square miles in the state that the need might be there to have more than
one
> >section, how would you divide it?  IF you looked at the population
compared
> >to location in the other states that have more than one section, we would
> >have just a Chicago section because of the density of the population
there!
> >Even beyond that, it still would not matter for this reflector for ilham.
I
> >live near Springfield myself and there is no way I could check in to one
of
> >those nets either.  I would bet if you got a list of the hams that are
> >subscribed to this reflector you would find that most of the subscribers
are
> >in the northern half of the state that may be near those repeaters.  You
are
> >getting messages about a VHF net in the Northern part of the state
because
> >someone submits it, not because we do not have more than one section and
it
> >has nothing to do with N9SH or the ARRL sections in the state.  JMO
> >
> >Tim Childers, KB9FBI
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Walter L. Wise"
> >
> >
> > > I think I must agree with Scott, K9SM.  I am always getting
information
> > > about VHF nets in the Northern part of the state.  There is no way I
can
> > > reach 300 miles on two meters.  The Southern part of the state needs
to be
> > > separate and conduct their own business.  While Sharon is doing a fine
> >job,
> > > it is unrealistic to send information about a VHF/UHF net being
conducted
> > > 300 miles away.
> > >
> > > Does anyone else agree with this?
> > >
> > > Wally, WA9BRQ
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ILHam mailing list
> > > ILHam at mailman.qth.net
> > > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ilham
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >ILHam mailing list
> >ILHam at mailman.qth.net
> >http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ilham
>
>
>
> Scott K9SM
> 'God please save us from the Good People'
>
> If you don't understand this you're part of the problem.
>
> Remember other sayings
>
> 'You can't fix stupid'
>
> 'If you don't your know history you are doomed to repeat it'
>
> _______________________________________________
> ILHam mailing list
> ILHam at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ilham