| |
PA2AGA > PACDIG 03.01.99 19:25l 169 Lines 6230 Bytes #-9999 (0) @ EU
BID : PR_98_286C
Read: GUEST
Subj: PacketRadioDigest 98/286C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0KFB<DB0CZ<DB0GE<DB0PSC<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8GCB<PI8WFL<
PI8VNW
Sent: 990103/1333Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:30312 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:PR_98_28
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : PACDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA13727 ; Sun, 03 Jan 99 13:13:35 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00011902 ; Sun, 03 Jan 99 13:47:54 MET
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 99 13:47:06 MET
Message-Id: <pr_98_286C>
From: pa2aga
To: pr_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: PacketRadioDigest 98/286C
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
non-hams... It's a network by and for Hams.You also know that both NTS
traffic handlers and MARS ops have always been a credit to the hobby.
Non-Ham means are used, yes, but only to bridge the final gap to/from the
non-ham participant. The great bulk of the communication is done by Ham
Radio, leaving a minor non-Ham component. To suggest otherwise would be both
untrue and a great insult to some of Amateur Radio's finest Hams.
Your casual contrast between those great Hams and the "LandLine Lid" element
that is primarily responsible for the downturn of the US packet net simply
does not hold water, and points out your anti-digital radio bias in this
matter.
"LandLine Lids have purposefully "routed around" the efforts of Hams to
communicate by radio, depriving them of traffic which you and I both know is
intended to be moved via Amateur Radio. The Hams are edged out by the
"LandLine Lids", and you should be ashamed of yourself for defending the
practice. I'm surprised that the ARRL is interested in a person who
expresses the opinions you do. The ARRL is FOR Ham Radio, right? Why aren't
you?
>
>>I do not see the efforts of hams to communicate by digital means to be
>>somehow "less Ham Radio" as you appear to. Why is it that you can
>understand
>>why Hams use Radio to communicate for voice and CW, but not for digital
>>stuff? I think I smell a bit of prejudice and discrimination here.
>
>Darned if I can see anything that Hans said that indicates he believes that
>digital is "less Ham Radio." Aren't strawmen nice? They're so easy to knock
>down!
No strawman was presented. Or knocked down.
>
>>So maybe you do not care for the digital stuff, and see it as less
>important
>>to Hams? That's fine, but keep in mind that what happens to digital hams
>>happens to all others as well. You cannot separate the two. - Spectrum
lost
>>from lack of use is gone. Period. Think it through.
>
>
>Think this through: If we insist that only "pure" all-RF digital networks
be
>used -- networks that are certain to be less capable than hybrid
networks --
Ham Radio is just not good enough for you, huh? Your insistence upon "less
capable" Ham networks is strictly in your own mind. Radio does different
things than the telephone, OM, and quite often does those things better. One
of these is emergency communications when the commercial carriers and
Internet access is either dead, or pre-empted by the authorities.
Are you really a Ham? Do I REALLY have to explain to you why Hams use Ham
Radio?
>all but the fanatical few (you and Hank :-) will abandon the digital
>networks altogether.
Horse-Hockey. It appears that you have absolutely no knowlege of the Ham
Radio Digital Net, and it's state not only here in the US, but in other
parts of the world. -- I'll give you a little clue, though . In the places
where Non-Ham means of communication are not allowed within Ham Radio
Digital networks, those networks have advanced and grown while the
unprotected nets such as we have the the US have regressed. This regression
is directly attributable to the introduction and final saturation of the US
digital net with Non-Ham means of communication which had no business being
there in the first place.
That's right - Where Hams have used Radio to communicate they have learned
how to do it better, and where they have given up on Ham Radio and cheated
by using the Internet and "pretending" it is Ham Radio, the Ham Digital
Network has regressed and shrank instead of advancing and growing. Building
a "virtual ham radio network" on the Internet has turned out to be a classic
case of self-destructive short-sightedness. I thought everybody knew that.
>Then there will be *less* use of spectrum by digital
>stations, not more. And if/when we need to build an ad hoc network of
>digital stations to pass emergency traffic, practically nobody will be
>equipped to do so.
Sorry OM, but defeatism and lack of faith in your fellow Hams just won't cut
it. I've heard your kind of negativity a million times, always from
apologists for "Radioless Ham Radio". Again, I'll say that you really should
be ashamed of yourself for listening to and parroting such negativity.
To see what Ham can do digitally with Radio, look into the FlexNet network
in Europe. Conditions there are different, but not THAT different. You need
to either develop a faith in the intelligence and ability of your fellow
Hams and comprehend that RADIO is the central factor here, or if you can't
perhaps you should move on to another hobby. If you have no particular
disire to see what can be done with Radio, maybe you're in the wrong place.
We need fighters, not quitters in Amateur Radio today.
73 DE Charles Brabham,
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: 3 Jan 1999 08:14:41 GMT
From: "RF" <studiotheta@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: thanks for the help
thanks to all of you sent me baycom...
My station is up and running.
Here is a pic of it.
total cost, pretty low.
73's
N7NUQ
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 22:56:15 +0100
From: "Cris" <cris@om3ega.demon.nl>
Subject: Troubles configuring TCPIP Call AGW
Hello , tnx 4 reading this.
I have some troubles configuring the callsign
AGW use for it's TCP/IP connection. It just
keeps transmitting : C^#84 to QST (or whatever)
I use WIn98 and AGWpe v95.20
I also use the TCPIP (recommended method) thus no
DialUp.
It works 100% only the call won't change to my needs.
73's Cris PD1AEM , Qth Dordrecht , The Netherlands
cris@om3ega.demon.nl
>.
------------------------------
End of Packet-Radio Digest V98 #286
******************************
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:packe001.jpg (JPEG/JVWR) (00025A3F)
Both my XYL and myself wish you a very
happy and prosperous New Year. Adam PA2AGA.
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
