| |
PA2AGA > TCPDIG 27.02.97 16:19l 199 Lines 7969 Bytes #-10706 (0) @ EU
BID : TCP_97_24F
Read: DG7DAH GUEST
Subj: TCP-Group Digest 97/24F
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0HOT<DB0LPZ<DB0ERF<DB0HSK<DB0SGL<DB0END<DB0ACC<
PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PI8VNW
Sent: 970227/1205Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:49974 [Hoek v Holland] FBB5.15c
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : TCPDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA30105 ; Thu, 27 Feb 97 10:25:54 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.62/7.1) with SMTP
id AA00001776 ; Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:18:45 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga with SMTP
id AA00001755 ; Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:07:39 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga-1 (NET/Mac 2.3.62/7.6) with SMTP
id AA00009198 ; Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:07:35 MET
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:03:31 MET
Message-Id: <tcp_97_24F>
From: pa2aga
To: tcp_broadcast@pa2aga-1
Subject: TCP-Group Digest 97/24F
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
is entirely up to them, why should you decide they shouldn't ?
I'm personally not in favour of BBS forwarding via gateways, go
speak to you colleagures not me.
> Given your opinion of the global RF forwarding net, I can see no reason you
> would wish to participate in it, except the obvious, intentional vandalism
> involved in operating an Internet forwarding gate. You're a destructive
> jerk. Your own statements make your motivations and actions quite clear.
I have no motivations with respect to BBS's. I am not involved in BBS's
at all.
> Let me invite you to SCREW OFF if you are sincere in your disparagement of
> the ham radio forwarding net. You don't need ham radio to play your
> telephone games, and the ham radio forwarding net most assuredly does not
> need you.
Such enlightenment is probably a contributing factor to your demise.
> > Clearly you don't know what you are talking about.
>
> Actually I do, and Australia isn't the only place where this question is
> being raised.
You made statements about the situation in Australia which in my view,
as an Australian were incorrect. Likewise for the effect and impact of
gateways. My unsubstantiated claims are as worthy as yours.
> NOS is a failure as a ham radio application. When was the last time you
> used NOS "networking" to talk to anyone more than 150 km. away OVER THE
> RADIO? You haven't, because amateur TCP/IP is simply not up to snuff as a
> ham radio application. You have to use the telephone to do anything
> significant with it.
I have and we used to quite regularly. Albeit via X1J nodes as IP
switches over AX.25. Don't confuse "Nobody has invested anything
in putting in place IP based radio networks" with "IP won't work
via radio".
> It has obviously done the forwarding net very much damage, and this is
> damage which was in no way neccessary in order for YOU to do YOUR thing.
> -- You and other Internet Forwarding jerkoffs are only there in the amateur
> radio forwarding net you love to run down for ONE REASON - To screw up what
> others enjoy doing, since you don't agree with it.
As I've already suggested, your suggestion that I've had anything to do
with BBS's or BBS forwarding is laughable. The only BBS forwarding we
have ever knowingly had via our gateway was instigated by a BBS operator
who we _allowed_ sole permission to, and that was at his request, we
certainly made no effort to encourage it, in fact we made every effort
to discourage it.
> What a bunch of worthless jerks!
Can I quote you on that ?
> > NetRom, Rose and AX.25 radio based networks have an added incentive to
> > be built, and are slowly being built to allow the many regionally based
> > amateur radio operators to gain access to the gateways and therefore the
> > fun of services such as convers.
>
> Bullshit.
> NetRom, ROSE, and AX25 nets have no incentive to grow, since every 'burg
> has telephone service and at least one "ham" like you. Think it through, if
> you're up to it.
Sorry Charles, the whole world doesn't work the way you think it does.
I don't need to prove anything to you. I've been involved in packet
since before AX.25 was rammed down our throats in place of the Vancouver
protocols I do have a much better idea of what is happening in this
country than you do.
> Probably not. There's nothing funny about a small clique of Internet
> forwarders managing to screw up a network built over a period of ten years
> by thousands of dedicated ham radio operators.
Such resistance to change ..
> You and Phil can both take a hike, Terry. The global amateur radio digital
> net is ham radio's greatest achievement, and a great source of pride to the
> many hams who have participated in it's establishment and growth.
> Let me invite anybody who doesn't like it to go on to other things they DO
> like.
We are doing just that. Sorry if you don't like that.
> I don't have any problem with you playing Amateur Telephone, Terry. I think
> it's kinda stupid, but that's just my opinion.
> I DO have a problem with you participating in the forwarding network for
> the sole purpose of vandalising it. There is no rational justification for
> that, and it is directly contrary to the "spirit" of ham radio, where hams
> avoid lessening the enjoyment of others.
Charles,
Pull your head in and realise that you have made a completely baseless
argument in a semi-public forum to provide a completely useless response
to a message that didn't concern you at all.
Apparently you cannot understand the hypocrisy of your stance.
> So kindly buzz off.
regards
Terry
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 03:19:54 -0600
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Benefits of AMPR IP encapsulation gateways.
> > Obviously your idea of being a ham doesn't match mine either. Where I
> > come from, we try to avoid activities which detract from the enjoyment
> > of others.
> >
> > Nobody on the existing amateur radio forwarding net you disparage so
> > asked a bunch of nincompoops with Internet connections to join in that
> > network, or to destroy large portions of it by replacing functioning RF
> > links with "amateur telephone" links..
>
> Gateways do not impinge upon BBS forwarding at all. If BBS operators
> chose not to forward that way then there would be zero net impact.
> The fact that some BBS operators choose to forward via gateways
> is entirely up to them, why should you decide they shouldn't ?
BBS operators are not being given the choice, in most cases. If you were a
bit more knowlegable about the amateur packet radio net, you wouldn't
embarrass yourself with statements like the one above.
> I'm personally not in favour of BBS forwarding via gateways, go
> speak to you colleagures not me.
>
Until you learn more about gateways and how they are typically used, maybe
you should back off on recommending their use. Do your homework first, and
you won't be so likely to make a fool of yourself.
> > Given your opinion of the global RF forwarding net, I can see no reason
> > you would wish to participate in it, except the obvious, intentional
> > vandalism involved in operating an Internet forwarding gate. You're a
destructive
> > jerk. Your own statements make your motivations and actions quite
clear.
>
> I have no motivations with respect to BBS's. I am not involved in BBS's
> at all.
>
After your earlier disparaging statements regarding the BBS forwarding net,
I'm afraid this " I have no motivations with respect to BBS's " sounds
amazingly like the lies, crawfishing, and sorry excuses I hear from most
LandLine Lids when they realize that they have been proved wrong.
Pick a story, and try to stick with it.
> > Let me invite you to SCREW OFF if you are sincere in your disparagement
> > of the ham radio forwarding net. You don't need ham radio to play your
> > telephone games, and the ham radio forwarding net most assuredly does
> > not need you.
>
> Such enlightenment is probably a contributing factor to your demise.
>
I'll stand by that statement 100%. Reports of my "demise" are greatly
exaggerated.
> > > Clearly you don't know what you are talking about.
> > Actually I do, and Australia isn't the only place where this question
> > is being raised.
>
> You made statements about the situation in Australia which in my view,
To be continued in digest: tcp_97_24G
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
