| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 28.09.99 01:44l 179 Lines 7324 Bytes #-9756 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_243E
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/243E
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<OK0PKL<OK0PPR<OK0PRG<OK0PAB<HA5OB<HA3PG<SV1AAW<
EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990927/2013Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:3613 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_243
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20116 ; Mon, 27 Sep 99 19:22:13 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016029 ; Mon, 27 Sep 99 20:42:01 MET
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 99 20:38:46 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_243E>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/243E
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
>that traffic, " I won't allow you to use Ham Radio to communicate".
>
>This is what TPRS did under Greg Jones' watch, and what TAPR is advocating
>now.
>
>Those who want to limit Ham radio, will destroy the hobby.
>
>That's why we need protective legislation to eliminate this limitation from
>the US digital network, once and for all.
>
>--
>
As long as a far superior and economical option is available to communicate,
whether I am in love with either view, "technology" or "limit", I will choose
the option that gets the job done to satisfy my desire for instant
gratification at the most economical price. At this time, and looking at the
future, nothing beats the internet for meeting my desires relative to
messages,
newsgroups, browsing, etc.
There is no other viable option for me that I am aware of, to do it by radio
in
small town America, except the SS wireless nework "card" as spoken of by the
"technology" camp. Needless to say, that requires the telephone, if the best
value for money or the most adaptable network is to be acheived. I follow the
rf network card threads closely, but the price at both ends is still far more
than I can justify relative to what it costs to share my residential line with
a computer.
Unlike the main proponent of the legislated "limit" philosophy, I see no
conceptual problem with interfacing an hf store and forward network into a
local high speed rf network connected to the net. If a few keystrokes would
dump the latest forwarded messages to me from such an integrated system;
great!
I see not conceptual problem with integrating slower vhf/uhf/? rf links into
such a system, either. If the desire exists for me and others to do so, great.
If no such desire exists, nothing short of a gun will cause me to see the
"errors" of my ways.
I, and apparently others, do have a problem with the suggestion that some sort
of legislative pressure be implemented to determine my choices or the choices
of others that might see options to integrate the technologies rather than
isolate them, or maybe do "none of the above". The "use it or lose it"
philosophy is one inplemented by the force of law, a consequence of the fed's
exclusive control of a natural resource, with economics as the standard for
choice. I cannot do much about that as it "anti american" to take issue with
the fed, and the cards are not in my hands.
I will, in a heartbeat, take issue with any self appointed martinet who seeks
the force of law to pressure me to to acquiesce to his view of how it should
be. If the reality was either or, as much as I love rf, amateur radio would
wind up in the trash can. I can afford to live without amateur radio. I cannot
"live" without the instant connectivity of the internet. To make it an either/
or choice is to make an enemy of me and most other amateur radio operators.
I would suggest integration, not discrimination.
--
Eschew obfuscation.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 11:20:46 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Hamish Moffatt <hamish@rising.com.au> wrote in message
news:7sl341$1mkq$1@arachne.labyrinth.net.au...
>
> Charles Brabham <n5pvl@texoma.net> wrote:
> > Thanks for confirming that ham radio is not involved in any of the
> > communications I mentioned, Brian. I knew Gary was a LandLine Lid, and
he
> > knew it, and now you have confirmed it for us all. It figures that Gary
> > would try so hard to weasel... He knows he's in the wrong.
>
> Charles, I agree with your general sentiment, but insulting people
> like Gary on this newsgroup just makes you look a fool.
I pointed out that Gary was involved in "Amateur Telephone". That was a
statement of fact, and if Gary is insulted by this, then he has insulted
himself. I had nothing whatsoever to do with his choice in that matter.
Gary DID use very insulting language against me though and yes, you are
correct about how foolish that can make one look... He probably felt he had
nothing to lose by it since he already looked that way.
That happens with Steve a lot too, I've noticed. When they realize that they
might have managed to make themselves look foolish, they somehow appear to
feel obligated to remove all doubt by playing the role to the hilt. Then
they start foaming at the mouth, etc... Poor things.
Anything is better in their minds, I suppose, than simply admitting that
they have been in the wrong and then taking steps to repair some of the
damage they have done to Amateur Packet Radio in the USA with their actions
and attitudes.
>
> > The US and Australian packet nets have both diminished and gone to the
dogs
>
> Your source for info on the VK packet situation?
A number of Australian Hams; Who else?
I'd be interested in your view too, and I was also wondering: Are the
LandLine Lids in Australia still operating illegally, or has the group
managed to downgrade the integrity of Australian Amateur Radio by watering
down the regs to allow and encourage Hams using non-ham means of
communication instead of Amateur RADIO?
Last I heard, the LLL community was desperately lobbying to turn Australian
Ham Radio into another CB service by eliminating those pesky regulations and
standards of conduct among Hams. - Just as they are trying to do here in the
US.
I suppose these folks will not be satisfied until they have destroyed
Amateur Radio altogether. They just can't seem to do enough to screw things
up.
Sick puppies!
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 14:28:30 -0400
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 19:37:00 -0700, "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net> wrote:
>Gary Coffman <ke4zv@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:bZfrN=2K6pft23oz4JS1MrcBvtG9@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 18:18:05 -0700, "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
>wrote:
>> >Why do you keep saying "alligator"? That means a station
>> >which hears poorly compared to how well it can be heard
>> >by normal stations. I am certainly not talking anything like
>> >that, but rather matched stations that obtain their required
>> >power spread via the use of reasonable power and good
>> >antennas. Remember: this is a point to point link I'm working
>> >on. It could well be full duplex, thus avoiding T/R switch time
>> >issues. However I wish to consider the half duplex alternative
>> >because it is easier to coordinate a single frequency.
>>
>> I'm calling it alligator thinking because you keep insisting that
>> you need a much higher power level than is reasonable for the
>> link distances you're talking about. That's going to cause all sorts
>> of multipath problems due to all of the reflections the receiving
To be continued in digest: hd_99_243F
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
