| |
PA2AGA > TCPDIG 27.02.97 16:51l 204 Lines 7624 Bytes #-10706 (0) @ EU
BID : TCP_97_24G
Read: DG7DAH GUEST
Subj: TCP-Group Digest 97/24G
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<OK0PKL<DB0JES<DB0NHM<DB0SIF<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0ACH<
DB0ACC<PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PI8VNW
Sent: 970227/1208Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:49980 [Hoek v Holland] FBB5.15c
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : TCPDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA30120 ; Thu, 27 Feb 97 11:47:58 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.62/7.1) with SMTP
id AA00001779 ; Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:19:00 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga with SMTP
id AA00001756 ; Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:07:51 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga-1 (NET/Mac 2.3.62/7.6) with SMTP
id AA00009199 ; Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:07:49 MET
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:03:32 MET
Message-Id: <tcp_97_24G>
From: pa2aga
To: tcp_broadcast@pa2aga-1
Subject: TCP-Group Digest 97/24G
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> as an Australian were incorrect. Likewise for the effect and impact of
> gateways. My unsubstantiated claims are as worthy as yours.
I made no unsubstantiated claims. I had no need to. The damage caused by
gateways is plain for any reasonably knowlegable ham to see.
>
> > 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".
>
"Used to" before Internet gave you a cheap way to use the telephone
instead, huh?
That's really pathetic... Any more lame excuses? That one didn't fly.
> > 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.
>
Get real. Do you really expect anyone to believe that? You've shown your
colors, Bud. It's a bit late to crawfish now.
>> What a bunch of worthless jerks!
>
> Can I quote you on that ?
Sure. Knock yourself out. You can even mis-quote me, if that's what floats
your boat.
>
> > > 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.
Try thinking it through again. It whizzed right over your head, first time
around.
Why build a node to talk to the next city, when a gateway is cheaper, and
doesn't require those pesky RADIOS, which require more expertise and yet
don't allow the same speed?
In fact, why use RADIOS to communicate with the guy across town? The
telephone is cheaper, easier, and faster!
Go for it, LandLine Lid! Haw Hawr! ;-) You'll be out of ham radio
soon enough!
My concern is that you, and others of your ilk do not pull down the rest of
amateur packet radio with you in your pointless pursuit.
All it takes is one LandLine Lid per city, and there will be no more "need"
for packet nodes or networking whatsoever.
Taking the "Amateur Telephone" credo to it's logical conclusion, you have -
The Internet! We've already got one of those, thank you. We don't need a
second-rate imitation of it which claims to be "ham radio" even though
radios are not used as the primary means of moving information.
Do the same thing WITH RADIOS and you'd have something to be proud of as a
ham. Do it with telephones, and you'll have something, but not anything to
be particularly proud of.
Any moron can use the phone. Big deal.
Amateur TCP/IP needs the telephone as a crutch because it just can't hack
it as a networking protocol for amateur radio.
> Such resistance to change ..
I'm sure the rapist had the same thing to say about the virgin...
As the gateway op says about the global BBS forwarding net.
Like most hams, I'm very interested in change. Where you and I differ is
that I'm more interested in useful, positive changes which will benefit
everyone.
I'm not motivated by expediency, as in the case of a "ham" who uses the
telephone because it is faster, but still wants to pretend it is "ham
radio" and turns a blind eye to the damage he is doing.
>
> > 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.
That's what I suggested... Can I assume that from now on, you will no
longer claim your Amateur Telephone activities as being beneficial or
related to Ham Radio?
>
> > 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.
>
I made a relevant and accurate response to a message which concerns all
hams.
Amateur Telephone will not only cost us our independent global RF network,
but also much the bit of spectrum we currently enjoy the use of.
You USE it, or you LOSE it.
I suppose such things matter very little to you though, do they?
> Apparently you cannot understand the hypocrisy of your stance.
>
My "stance" is that gateways are detrimental to the amateur radio digital
net and amateur radio. This is based on fact, not opinion.
My "stance" is based on what is good for amateur packet radio and the
thousands of hams who have worked to build the global, independent network
you disparage; Not on simple, base expediency.
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Packet Radio : N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
E-Mail : n5pvl@texoma.com
Web : http://www.texoma.com/~n5pvl
------------------------------
End of TCP-Group Digest V97 #24
******************************
You can send your message for this bulletin
to: tcp-group@pa2aga on .AMPR.ORG-net
or: tcpaga@pi8vnw.#zh2.nld.eu on BBS-net
------
NOT TO: pa2aga@pa2aga or pa2aga@pi8vnw.#zh2.nld.eu PLEASE!!
It will get posted automatically within a few days
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
