| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 04.10.99 18:32l 244 Lines 7436 Bytes #-9731 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_247H
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/247H
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0CRL<DB0TTM<DB0FP<DB0SWR<DB0HBN<DB0SON<DB0SIF<DB0HSK<
PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 991004/1310Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:5392 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_247
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20395 ; Mon, 04 Oct 99 12:47:42 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016164 ; Sat, 02 Oct 99 14:19:32 MET
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 99 14:07:27 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_247H>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/247H
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
pmarkham <pmarkham@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:36433.74655949EFCBpmarkhamnewsguycom@208.134.253.174...
> horedson@att.net (Hank Oredson) wrote in
> <7t0kfc$hbe$1@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>:
>
> >
> >pmarkham <pmarkham@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> >news:36433.3060258178F2pmarkhamnewsguycom@208.134.253.187...
> >> mchughes@NOSPAM.netnitco.net (Mike Hughes) wrote in
> >> <7suua6$2lr$1@hyperion.nitco.com>:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >In contrast, LLLids take traffic intended for amateur radio and relay
it
> >via a
> >> >completely different network that has absolutely nothing to do with
> >amateur
> >> >radio.
> >>
> >> The "intended for amateur radio" is a pure fabrication
> >
> >You, sir, are an idiot.
> >
> >When I send traffic via ham radio, I intend it to go via ham radio.
> >Thus "intended" above.
> >
> >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.
Ah ... "... most ...", "... in my neighborhood ...", etc. etc.
Spoken like a true Land Line Lid.
> Nothing you can say, personal or otherwise, will change what it was.
Strange as it may seem, I know quite well "what it was" <grin>.
The fact that you are ignorant on the topic does not change things.
> It is a pity that the conversation has to degenerate into personal
animosity.
That was your choice with the "... pure fabrication ...".
Ya ask for flames, ya get 'em.
Go whine at someone else.
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
..
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 22:41:32 -0500
From: "Mike Hughes" <mchughes@NOSPAM.netnitco.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
pmarkham wrote in message
<36433.3060258178F2pmarkhamnewsguycom@208.134.253.187>...
>mchughes@NOSPAM.netnitco.net (Mike Hughes) wrote in
><7suua6$2lr$1@hyperion.nitco.com>:
>
>>
>>In contrast, LLLids take traffic intended for amateur radio and relay it via
a
>>completely different network that has absolutely nothing to do with amateur
>>radio.
>
>The "intended for amateur radio" is a pure fabrication
Oh really? Then why do packet users place their messages on the RADIO
network to begin with? Why not use e-mail or Usenet? It'd certainly be
faster.
Personally, I enjoy packet radio because it IS radio. If I want to send
something
via the Internet, I'll use the Internet.
As a ham, I find the whole subject of radio-based digital networking to be
very interesting, and I, along with a great many other hams, took pride in the
fact that we had an all-radio digital network that could forward messages
virtually anywhere in the world. Can't say that anymore, because somewhere
along the line, some BBS is going to take that message and relay it over the
Internet.... not because they have to, but because they think they're doing us
all some kind of "favor" by bypassing several hops.
>
>A LLLid "law", as proposed, is not going to bring me or others back to packet
>radio.
You must be confusing me with Charles. I never proposed, nor would I ever
support any such law. Better to just route around the buzzards and leave the
government out of it.
>
>Contrived arguments, magical incantations, mantras, etc. will not bring back
an
>amateur radio data network to many hams. Motivation, technogy and money might
>do it.
You're right. No amount of blather in Usenet is going to restore the packet
network. And that includes those who spout rhetoric about how we need new
applications -- yet are totally silent when asked what sort of applications
those
might be.
My point is.... instead of parroting rhetoric about new applications, high-
speed
LANs, our underused UHF/microwave bands, etc, people need to worry more
about what THEY can do to help rectify these perceived shortcomings in their
own local area.
73, Mike - KG9HF
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:00:27 -0700
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
pmarkham <pmarkham@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:36433.8749465375Fpmarkhamnewsguycom@208.134.253.152...
> 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.
Has nothing to do with this newsgroup. The newsgroup is about radio.
Ham radio. Used in digital modes. Got it?
> "Why be on packet right now? Except for that it's radio?"? I do not
> understand what you are saying,
For heavens sake, try READING what people write!
> but, as I said before, if the sole purpose of
> using packet radio is using the radio, so be it.
Um ... "radio" ... get it now?
> Different strokes for
> different folks.
I see. You have no interest in radio. Why are you posting here?
> I did packet and TCP/IP radio for years, and enjoyed it.
Implies: "I no longer am active on ham radio."
> If
> those that chose to forward by landline are such reprehensible, subhuman,
> worthless S.O.B.s, I suggest the radio elite
This newsgroup is about radio. Go elsewhere for other interests.
> cease associating with the LL set
> and do it their radio way.
This newsgroup is about radio.
> They have choices.
If they choose not to use radio, and post here, they are on the
To be continued in digest: hd_99_247I
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
