| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 04.10.99 17:58l 211 Lines 7384 Bytes #-9731 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_247F
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/247F
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0GPP<DB0GAP<DB0BOX<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0SHG<DB0OBK<DB0SM<
PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 991004/1211Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:5237 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_247
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20389 ; Mon, 04 Oct 99 11:15:49 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016158 ; Sat, 02 Oct 99 14:19:11 MET
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 99 14:07:23 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_247F>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/247F
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
nowadays, .it seems. Why be on packet right now? Except for that it's
radio?
>.
------------------------------
Date: 30 Sep 1999 23:41:30 GMT
From: pmarkham@newsguy.com (pmarkham)
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
dnelsch@neo.rr.com (Don) wrote in <37F3DE03.A4D44210@neo.rr.com>:
>Hank does intend for his messages to go via ham radio.
That he may. Many others are just interested in the messages getting to and
from,
intact, as fast as possible. Those folks of whom I speak, including me, are
the
majority that used the old system while it met our requirements and few to no
economical alternatives were available. We have since deserted the amateur
radio
network because it no longer meets our needs.
The state of the current network is sufficient evidence for me that most of
the
ugly denial rhetoric is less than honest.
Pete/wa4hei
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:42:34 -0700
From: "Cathryn Mataga" <cathryn@junglevision.com>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
pmarkham wrote in message
<36433.820539816A83pmarkhamnewsguycom@208.134.253.128>...
>dnelsch@neo.rr.com (Don) wrote in <37F3DE03.A4D44210@neo.rr.com>:
>
>>Hank does intend for his messages to go via ham radio.
>
>That he may. Many others are just interested in the messages getting to and
from,
>intact, as fast as possible. Those folks of whom I speak, including me, are
the
>majority that used the old system while it met our requirements and few to no
>economical alternatives were available. We have since deserted the amateur
radio
>network because it no longer meets our needs.
>
>The state of the current network is sufficient evidence for me that most of
the
>ugly denial rhetoric is less than honest.
If you ignore the radio side of things, the network has never
worked better. All you need is an axip connection from one of big internet
forwarders, and you'll get all the Bulletins and Messages you could ever read.
Though just for fun, I asked wb0tax for an account on his bbs -- I told him
that I just wanted to read messages right from the source --
but he never gave me an account. Not exactly sure why -- he seemed
sincerely befuddled by the request. Though for me, if fast is what
counts, than might as well go to the hub -- and cut out the middlemen,
you know.
>.
------------------------------
Date: 1 Oct 1999 00:59:49 GMT
From: pmarkham@newsguy.com (pmarkham)
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
cathryn@junglevision.com (Cathryn Mataga) wrote in <7DSI3.90$%Z.1519@nuq-
read.news.verio.net>:
>
>pmarkham wrote in message
>>>Perhaps you are unfamiliar with American English.
>>>Thus this minor correction to your reading of what I wrote.
>>>
>>>I "intend", the Land Line Lids interfere with that intention.
>>>
>>
>>As an "idiot" and ex node sysop, I still maintain that I and most
individuals
>>in my neighbourhood used the "ham radio" packet network to send or retrieve
>>data from point A to point B, with no concern how it travelled in the
network
>>as long as it got from point A to point B.
>>
>>Nothing you can say, personal or otherwise, will change what it was.
>>
>>It is a pity that the conversation has to degenerate into personal
animosity.
>
>
>Hmm, or maybe it's just that it's changed since you were active. How far
>back was that? Seems like nowadays anybody who just wants to send
>a message from Point A to Point B uses email. The number of people
>who need Ham SYSOPS to provide them with access to email, I would
>guess is pretty near to zero. Even the little old ladies have email
>nowadays, .it seems. Why be on packet right now? Except for that it's
>radio?
>
>
Just in case there is a comprehension problem; I said: "send or retrieve data
from point A to point B" That is pretty much all inclusive, not restricted to
email like messages.
"Why be on packet right now? Except for that it's radio?"? I do not
understand what you are saying, but, as I said before, if the sole purpose of
using packet radio is using the radio, so be it. Different strokes for
different folks. I did packet and TCP/IP radio for years, and enjoyed it. If
those that chose to forward by landline are such reprehensible, subhuman,
worthless S.O.B.s, I suggest the radio elite cease associating with the LL set
and do it their radio way. They have choices. Live with the limitations of
your choices, or kill all the landline forwarders. After all it is only a
hobby.
Free will exists, so I do not associate with known baby rapers.
Pete/wa4hei
--
Eschew obfuscation.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 22:24:34 -0400
From: Don <dnelsch@neo.rr.com>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Among other things, he mungs/deletes SOME of the R: lines so that it is
impossible to trace a message and/or a BID/MID change. He mungs the message
so
that it appears to be from a different home bbs than is actual, so the BBS
"REPLY"
commands are rendered inoperable. He adds characters and line feeds in
violation
of the BBS spec. He refuses to pass WP messages of any sort. He also held
messages for up to a week before they get forwarded. (Talk about STORE and
forward!) And yes, there is the useless (advertising) tag line.
On the tag line issue, as far as I am concerned, they are absolutely
unnecessary. I will probably never financially support your friend's Westnet.
I
have no need for WinPac/WinLink, and I don't need a tag line on a message
telling
me to support AMSAT, I already do.
This is supposed to be a hobby, where one can have fun and provide a service
as
well. If the HF routes are unreliable, it is a problem, not fun. As a bbs
sysop,
I have chosen to take the path of message delivery service, and am unwilling
to
accept a message that I can not be reasonably assured that it will be
delivered.
If AX/IP is the reliable route, that's the way it will go out of this system.
Under the current conditions, I have no other choice.
Cathryn Mataga wrote:
> Don wrote in message <37F3DE03.A4D44210@neo.rr.com>...
>
> >Now Hank, before you get your bathwater hot, your HF "winlink" buddy to my
> >north distorts and changes the body of messages. He also will not accept
> >several classes of bulletins or personal messages. I don't prefer to send
> >messages into a black hole where I know in advance they will be distorted.
I
> >prefer to deliver the messages via a source that will get them there in
their
> >original form.
>
> Interesting. How exactly are the messages being changed? Is this guy going
> in and changing the words around? Or are lines disapearing?
> Or is he putting a tagline at the bottom of messages.
> I know the woman who does the satellite gateway here sticks a 'please
support
> Amsat' tag on messages that go through her system. Someone else here on
> this side of the continent sticks in a 'Forwarded by Westnet. Please
support
To be continued in digest: hd_99_247G
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
