| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
JNOS message question
I'm in the process of installing JNOS 111f for Linux and have run into a
problem. When a user sends a message to another local user, the system responds with a "Msg queued" message, but the message is never delivered. If I log in as Sysop, I can't see any messages. If I look in the /spool/mqueue I can see all the messages sitting there. Anyone have any suggestions on where to start? Thanks, Jeff N0WJP |
"charlesb" wrote
Hope this helps! It doesn't. Your argument is much that of a Mac user when asked a PC question. They say buy a Mac, and then list a bunch of generalities while bashing the PC. |
"charlesb" wrote
Hope this helps! It doesn't. Your argument is much that of a Mac user when asked a PC question. They say buy a Mac, and then list a bunch of generalities while bashing the PC. |
"Gene Storey" wrote in message news:5Xwkb.1932$5c2.310@okepread03... "charlesb" wrote Hope this helps! It doesn't. Your argument is much that of a Mac user when asked a PC question. They say buy a Mac, and then list a bunch of generalities while bashing the PC. Not really. The guy wanted to know how to get the JNOS software to behave and I gave an honest answer as to how I would solve the problem. - I would round-file the JNOS software, and go from there. I used to test and review packet software, and found JNOS to be the very lousiest excuse for packet radio software I had ever seen. Despite that, I did manage to get it working, at least good enough so that I could test its functionality for a fair review, so I am familiar with the unnecessary head-aches and poor on-the-air performance this guy is putting up with. I gave the guy a little historical info about the software he was using, and pointed the way to more modern software that will do a better job with a lot less trouble. I was working on the assumption that the guy was not a masochist, but just wanted a reliable packet radio BBS that would work without constant massaging and tinkering, or embarassing malfunctions that lose people's messages. I suppose that you are free to run me down for trying to help the guy out, but notice that I won't say a single word about you being an obvious "protocol warrior", still stuck back in the 1980's. Charles Brabhan, N5PVL |
"Gene Storey" wrote in message news:5Xwkb.1932$5c2.310@okepread03... "charlesb" wrote Hope this helps! It doesn't. Your argument is much that of a Mac user when asked a PC question. They say buy a Mac, and then list a bunch of generalities while bashing the PC. Not really. The guy wanted to know how to get the JNOS software to behave and I gave an honest answer as to how I would solve the problem. - I would round-file the JNOS software, and go from there. I used to test and review packet software, and found JNOS to be the very lousiest excuse for packet radio software I had ever seen. Despite that, I did manage to get it working, at least good enough so that I could test its functionality for a fair review, so I am familiar with the unnecessary head-aches and poor on-the-air performance this guy is putting up with. I gave the guy a little historical info about the software he was using, and pointed the way to more modern software that will do a better job with a lot less trouble. I was working on the assumption that the guy was not a masochist, but just wanted a reliable packet radio BBS that would work without constant massaging and tinkering, or embarassing malfunctions that lose people's messages. I suppose that you are free to run me down for trying to help the guy out, but notice that I won't say a single word about you being an obvious "protocol warrior", still stuck back in the 1980's. Charles Brabhan, N5PVL |
Thanks for the suggestions, Charles, but FBB is the whole reason I'm looking
at JNOS. I ran it for several years and found it to be very unreliable and unable to integrate with gateway software. I used FBB to run the local packet BBS here in Omaha and to forward on VHF, UHF, HF, and the internet. FBB is great for talking to other FBB systems, but not too good at talking to anything else. And yes, I plan to gateway this system through the internet. I'll hold on to my ham license, though. I need it for my 10-15 hours I spend each week on HF either on 7.261 or working cw on the low end of 40. And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS if I wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years. 73, Jeff N0WJP "charlesb" wrote in message ... "Gene Storey" wrote in message news:5Xwkb.1932$5c2.310@okepread03... "charlesb" wrote Hope this helps! It doesn't. Your argument is much that of a Mac user when asked a PC question. They say buy a Mac, and then list a bunch of generalities while bashing the PC. Not really. The guy wanted to know how to get the JNOS software to behave and I gave an honest answer as to how I would solve the problem. - I would round-file the JNOS software, and go from there. I used to test and review packet software, and found JNOS to be the very lousiest excuse for packet radio software I had ever seen. Despite that, I did manage to get it working, at least good enough so that I could test its functionality for a fair review, so I am familiar with the unnecessary head-aches and poor on-the-air performance this guy is putting up with. I gave the guy a little historical info about the software he was using, and pointed the way to more modern software that will do a better job with a lot less trouble. I was working on the assumption that the guy was not a masochist, but just wanted a reliable packet radio BBS that would work without constant massaging and tinkering, or embarassing malfunctions that lose people's messages. I suppose that you are free to run me down for trying to help the guy out, but notice that I won't say a single word about you being an obvious "protocol warrior", still stuck back in the 1980's. Charles Brabhan, N5PVL |
Thanks for the suggestions, Charles, but FBB is the whole reason I'm looking
at JNOS. I ran it for several years and found it to be very unreliable and unable to integrate with gateway software. I used FBB to run the local packet BBS here in Omaha and to forward on VHF, UHF, HF, and the internet. FBB is great for talking to other FBB systems, but not too good at talking to anything else. And yes, I plan to gateway this system through the internet. I'll hold on to my ham license, though. I need it for my 10-15 hours I spend each week on HF either on 7.261 or working cw on the low end of 40. And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS if I wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years. 73, Jeff N0WJP "charlesb" wrote in message ... "Gene Storey" wrote in message news:5Xwkb.1932$5c2.310@okepread03... "charlesb" wrote Hope this helps! It doesn't. Your argument is much that of a Mac user when asked a PC question. They say buy a Mac, and then list a bunch of generalities while bashing the PC. Not really. The guy wanted to know how to get the JNOS software to behave and I gave an honest answer as to how I would solve the problem. - I would round-file the JNOS software, and go from there. I used to test and review packet software, and found JNOS to be the very lousiest excuse for packet radio software I had ever seen. Despite that, I did manage to get it working, at least good enough so that I could test its functionality for a fair review, so I am familiar with the unnecessary head-aches and poor on-the-air performance this guy is putting up with. I gave the guy a little historical info about the software he was using, and pointed the way to more modern software that will do a better job with a lot less trouble. I was working on the assumption that the guy was not a masochist, but just wanted a reliable packet radio BBS that would work without constant massaging and tinkering, or embarassing malfunctions that lose people's messages. I suppose that you are free to run me down for trying to help the guy out, but notice that I won't say a single word about you being an obvious "protocol warrior", still stuck back in the 1980's. Charles Brabhan, N5PVL |
"Jeff Camp" wrote in message news:5OJkb.21408$iq3.18773@okepread01... Thanks for the suggestions, Charles, but FBB is the whole reason I'm looking at JNOS. I ran it for several years and found it to be very unreliable and unable to integrate with gateway software. I used FBB to run the local packet BBS here in Omaha and to forward on VHF, UHF, HF, and the internet. FBB is great for talking to other FBB systems, but not too good at talking to anything else. Well, to tell the truth, Jeff, you are the second person I've ever heard talk about FBB BBS software being "unreliable". The other complainer was a LandLine Lid, too, so I'll assume it's the non-ham stuff that you are having trouble with. You can imagine how broke up I must be, over you experiencing difficulties while trying to screw up. And yes, I plan to gateway this system through the internet. I'll hold on to my ham license, though. I need it for my 10-15 hours I spend each week on HF either on 7.261 or working cw on the low end of 40. Don't count on your messages being delivered to or by the genuine amateur radio stations in the BBS forwarding net. Gateway stations have caused so much damage to the fowarding network that many BBS forwarders are now refusing to handle traffic either coming from or going into any LandLine Lid system. Several of the more destructive LansdLine Lid stations have been isolated this way, to reduce the amount of damage that they can do. There are now large sections of the country where non-ham stuff is not allowed to participate in the Ham Radio network at all. Your messages will not be delivered there. LandLine Lid stations there can chat with each other on the Internet, as usual, but are not allowed to disrupt the activities of genuine amateur radio packet network. You will probably be "forwarding" ( internet chatting) with some of these lonely, out of place LandLine Lid stations, keeping a miserable trickle of messages going for them. Remember that the packet radio HF forwarding network is an association of amateur radio operators who work to implement HF digital links. Your non-ham links are not welcome amongst these hams who are trying to use radio, and your operation within that group with your non-ham links will- to the extent that it is tolerated - cause disruption within the network, making it harder for hams to use radio as intended for this purpose. - But you already know all that, Jeff, and don't care. That's the kind of "ham" that you are, aren't you? You know, this kind of destructive, disruptive LandLine Lid "protocol war" behavior was bad enough back in the 1980's... Back then, it decimated the existing HF forwarding network and disrupted packet communications across the USA, and it was all chalked up to "protocol wars", as if that was any justification for deliberately disrupting amateur radio communications. These days, with the ARRL affiliated with Homeland Security, your disruptive, anti-ham activities may have a little bit more serious consequences that they might have had ten years ago. I sincerely hope that it does. You are an insect, Jeff, that really deserves to be squashed. I consider anybody who deliberately denigrates and undercuts the ham digital network as you intend to do, during this time of war against terrorism to be beneath contempt. What used to be despicable enough as "protocol warrior" behavior back in the 1980's can now end up costing people's lives and property, disrupting our ability to as hams to provide emergency communications in the event of a terrorist attack or disaster. There is literally no excuse for the disruptive, destructive activity you propose. Charles Brabham, N5PVL Director: USPacket.Net http://www.uspacket.net |
"Jeff Camp" wrote in message news:5OJkb.21408$iq3.18773@okepread01... Thanks for the suggestions, Charles, but FBB is the whole reason I'm looking at JNOS. I ran it for several years and found it to be very unreliable and unable to integrate with gateway software. I used FBB to run the local packet BBS here in Omaha and to forward on VHF, UHF, HF, and the internet. FBB is great for talking to other FBB systems, but not too good at talking to anything else. Well, to tell the truth, Jeff, you are the second person I've ever heard talk about FBB BBS software being "unreliable". The other complainer was a LandLine Lid, too, so I'll assume it's the non-ham stuff that you are having trouble with. You can imagine how broke up I must be, over you experiencing difficulties while trying to screw up. And yes, I plan to gateway this system through the internet. I'll hold on to my ham license, though. I need it for my 10-15 hours I spend each week on HF either on 7.261 or working cw on the low end of 40. Don't count on your messages being delivered to or by the genuine amateur radio stations in the BBS forwarding net. Gateway stations have caused so much damage to the fowarding network that many BBS forwarders are now refusing to handle traffic either coming from or going into any LandLine Lid system. Several of the more destructive LansdLine Lid stations have been isolated this way, to reduce the amount of damage that they can do. There are now large sections of the country where non-ham stuff is not allowed to participate in the Ham Radio network at all. Your messages will not be delivered there. LandLine Lid stations there can chat with each other on the Internet, as usual, but are not allowed to disrupt the activities of genuine amateur radio packet network. You will probably be "forwarding" ( internet chatting) with some of these lonely, out of place LandLine Lid stations, keeping a miserable trickle of messages going for them. Remember that the packet radio HF forwarding network is an association of amateur radio operators who work to implement HF digital links. Your non-ham links are not welcome amongst these hams who are trying to use radio, and your operation within that group with your non-ham links will- to the extent that it is tolerated - cause disruption within the network, making it harder for hams to use radio as intended for this purpose. - But you already know all that, Jeff, and don't care. That's the kind of "ham" that you are, aren't you? You know, this kind of destructive, disruptive LandLine Lid "protocol war" behavior was bad enough back in the 1980's... Back then, it decimated the existing HF forwarding network and disrupted packet communications across the USA, and it was all chalked up to "protocol wars", as if that was any justification for deliberately disrupting amateur radio communications. These days, with the ARRL affiliated with Homeland Security, your disruptive, anti-ham activities may have a little bit more serious consequences that they might have had ten years ago. I sincerely hope that it does. You are an insect, Jeff, that really deserves to be squashed. I consider anybody who deliberately denigrates and undercuts the ham digital network as you intend to do, during this time of war against terrorism to be beneath contempt. What used to be despicable enough as "protocol warrior" behavior back in the 1980's can now end up costing people's lives and property, disrupting our ability to as hams to provide emergency communications in the event of a terrorist attack or disaster. There is literally no excuse for the disruptive, destructive activity you propose. Charles Brabham, N5PVL Director: USPacket.Net http://www.uspacket.net |
"Jeff Camp" wrote in message news:5OJkb.21408$iq3.18773@okepread01... And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS if I wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years. I didn't say it was newer, I said it was more reliable and did not require so much tinkering. You can get copiies of DOS all over the place. Try an interenet search, or get somebody to show you how to do one. Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
"Jeff Camp" wrote in message news:5OJkb.21408$iq3.18773@okepread01... And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS if I wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years. I didn't say it was newer, I said it was more reliable and did not require so much tinkering. You can get copiies of DOS all over the place. Try an interenet search, or get somebody to show you how to do one. Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
Oh ****! You made the "Director" mad...
"charlesb" wrote Charles Brabham, N5PVL Director: USPacket.Net |
Oh ****! You made the "Director" mad...
"charlesb" wrote Charles Brabham, N5PVL Director: USPacket.Net |
I'm kind of disgusted, but not really "mad". The guy is an insect, annoying but nothing to get upset about. Charles Brabham, N5PVL "Gene Storey" wrote in message news:aJPkb.3435$5c2.2479@okepread03... Oh ****! You made the "Director" mad... "charlesb" wrote Charles Brabham, N5PVL Director: USPacket.Net |
I'm kind of disgusted, but not really "mad". The guy is an insect, annoying but nothing to get upset about. Charles Brabham, N5PVL "Gene Storey" wrote in message news:aJPkb.3435$5c2.2479@okepread03... Oh ****! You made the "Director" mad... "charlesb" wrote Charles Brabham, N5PVL Director: USPacket.Net |
Yeah, I'm in real trouble now.
Charles, why don't you join us in the 21st century? It's attitudes like yours that have made ham radio just a "curiosity" rather than a community of dedicated experimenters who develop new communications technology before the commercial interests can do it. If I'm an insect, then you're an antique. As for HF forwarding I guess we'll wait and see. I'll attempt to get back into HF forwarding once my VHF, UHF and microwave links are back up. 73, Jeff N0WJP "Gene Storey" wrote in message news:aJPkb.3435$5c2.2479@okepread03... Oh ****! You made the "Director" mad... "charlesb" wrote Charles Brabham, N5PVL Director: USPacket.Net |
Yeah, I'm in real trouble now.
Charles, why don't you join us in the 21st century? It's attitudes like yours that have made ham radio just a "curiosity" rather than a community of dedicated experimenters who develop new communications technology before the commercial interests can do it. If I'm an insect, then you're an antique. As for HF forwarding I guess we'll wait and see. I'll attempt to get back into HF forwarding once my VHF, UHF and microwave links are back up. 73, Jeff N0WJP "Gene Storey" wrote in message news:aJPkb.3435$5c2.2479@okepread03... Oh ****! You made the "Director" mad... "charlesb" wrote Charles Brabham, N5PVL Director: USPacket.Net |
"Jeff Camp" wrote in message news:zNQkb.21429$iq3.15134@okepread01... Yeah, I'm in real trouble now. Charles, why don't you join us in the 21st century? It's attitudes like yours that have made ham radio just a "curiosity" rather than a community of dedicated experimenters who develop new communications technology before the commercial interests can do it. If I'm an insect, then you're an antique. Ah yes! The dedicated Land Line Lid! Spouting the same drivel and lies they all do. "Why not advance ham radio by using the internet instead of radio!" Sir, you are an idiot. -- ... Hank Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net |
"Jeff Camp" wrote in message news:zNQkb.21429$iq3.15134@okepread01... Yeah, I'm in real trouble now. Charles, why don't you join us in the 21st century? It's attitudes like yours that have made ham radio just a "curiosity" rather than a community of dedicated experimenters who develop new communications technology before the commercial interests can do it. If I'm an insect, then you're an antique. Ah yes! The dedicated Land Line Lid! Spouting the same drivel and lies they all do. "Why not advance ham radio by using the internet instead of radio!" Sir, you are an idiot. -- ... Hank Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net |
Jeff,
I'm not familar with JNOS but this sounds like a routing problem. Does each local user have their own mail queue? Under linux, each user has a file under /var/spool/mail. Mail coming into the box is transferred into a file under /var/spool/mail by the sendmail program. Sendmail looks up each destination address in an 'aliases' file (/etc/aliases or /etc/mail/aliases), if it isn't found there it is written into a file in the /var/spool/mail directory. The file is given the name of the destination address (i.e. the local user). If it is found in the aliases file, the real name stored in the aliases file is substituted for the destination address and then the message is written into the correct file under the /var/spool/mail directory. It sounds like you either have no program like sendmail looking at the incoming mail queue in order to deliver it locally or your local users are not defined to the linux system. Does JNOS have a mail transport agent process that perhaps isn't getting started? Are all local users defined properly? I hope this gives you a place to start. Tim ab0wr Jeff Camp wrote: I'm in the process of installing JNOS 111f for Linux and have run into a problem. When a user sends a message to another local user, the system responds with a "Msg queued" message, but the message is never delivered. If I log in as Sysop, I can't see any messages. If I look in the /spool/mqueue I can see all the messages sitting there. Anyone have any suggestions on where to start? Thanks, Jeff N0WJP |
Jeff,
I'm not familar with JNOS but this sounds like a routing problem. Does each local user have their own mail queue? Under linux, each user has a file under /var/spool/mail. Mail coming into the box is transferred into a file under /var/spool/mail by the sendmail program. Sendmail looks up each destination address in an 'aliases' file (/etc/aliases or /etc/mail/aliases), if it isn't found there it is written into a file in the /var/spool/mail directory. The file is given the name of the destination address (i.e. the local user). If it is found in the aliases file, the real name stored in the aliases file is substituted for the destination address and then the message is written into the correct file under the /var/spool/mail directory. It sounds like you either have no program like sendmail looking at the incoming mail queue in order to deliver it locally or your local users are not defined to the linux system. Does JNOS have a mail transport agent process that perhaps isn't getting started? Are all local users defined properly? I hope this gives you a place to start. Tim ab0wr Jeff Camp wrote: I'm in the process of installing JNOS 111f for Linux and have run into a problem. When a user sends a message to another local user, the system responds with a "Msg queued" message, but the message is never delivered. If I log in as Sysop, I can't see any messages. If I look in the /spool/mqueue I can see all the messages sitting there. Anyone have any suggestions on where to start? Thanks, Jeff N0WJP |
"Jeff Camp" wrote in message news:zNQkb.21429$iq3.15134@okepread01... If I'm an insect, then you're an antique. Hey Bub, you're the one pushing the latest packet radio technology from the 1980's... Your "protocol warrior" attitude is 1980's vintage as well. You're the antique, OM... Your bogus attitude is as obsolete as the bogus software you are struggling with. Insect. Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
"Jeff Camp" wrote in message news:zNQkb.21429$iq3.15134@okepread01... If I'm an insect, then you're an antique. Hey Bub, you're the one pushing the latest packet radio technology from the 1980's... Your "protocol warrior" attitude is 1980's vintage as well. You're the antique, OM... Your bogus attitude is as obsolete as the bogus software you are struggling with. Insect. Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
I run around with some Drag racing guys (Top Fuel, Funny Cars, Gassers, etc),
and just like Hams, they are super-critical about what a "true hot rodder" should have on his car. I know for a fact that these guys blow **** up even if it was gold plated, but yet they keep buying the same **** because everyone else will label them a traitor or a poster-boy for some manufacturer. There's some people who can't operate without negative peer pressure. They wrap their positive messages in negative slants about one thing or another. You can't change them, and they are too stupid to change themselves. "Jeff Camp" wrote Yeah, I'm in real trouble now. Charles, why don't you join us in the 21st century? It's attitudes like yours that have made ham radio just a "curiosity" rather than a community of dedicated experimenters who develop new communications technology before the commercial interests can do it. If I'm an insect, then you're an antique. As for HF forwarding I guess we'll wait and see. I'll attempt to get back into HF forwarding once my VHF, UHF and microwave links are back up. 73, Jeff N0WJP "Gene Storey" wrote in message Oh ****! You made the "Director" mad... "charlesb" wrote Charles Brabham, N5PVL Director: USPacket.Net |
I run around with some Drag racing guys (Top Fuel, Funny Cars, Gassers, etc),
and just like Hams, they are super-critical about what a "true hot rodder" should have on his car. I know for a fact that these guys blow **** up even if it was gold plated, but yet they keep buying the same **** because everyone else will label them a traitor or a poster-boy for some manufacturer. There's some people who can't operate without negative peer pressure. They wrap their positive messages in negative slants about one thing or another. You can't change them, and they are too stupid to change themselves. "Jeff Camp" wrote Yeah, I'm in real trouble now. Charles, why don't you join us in the 21st century? It's attitudes like yours that have made ham radio just a "curiosity" rather than a community of dedicated experimenters who develop new communications technology before the commercial interests can do it. If I'm an insect, then you're an antique. As for HF forwarding I guess we'll wait and see. I'll attempt to get back into HF forwarding once my VHF, UHF and microwave links are back up. 73, Jeff N0WJP "Gene Storey" wrote in message Oh ****! You made the "Director" mad... "charlesb" wrote Charles Brabham, N5PVL Director: USPacket.Net |
And now the "Directors" Amen corner has sung his spiritual...
"Hank Oredson" wrote Ah yes! The dedicated Land Line Lid! Spouting the same drivel and lies they all do. |
And now the "Directors" Amen corner has sung his spiritual...
"Hank Oredson" wrote Ah yes! The dedicated Land Line Lid! Spouting the same drivel and lies they all do. |
"Gene Storey" wrote in message news:XbZkb.4232$5c2.1533@okepread03... I run around with some Drag racing guys (Top Fuel, Funny Cars, Gassers, etc), and just like Hams, they are super-critical about what a "true hot rodder" should have on his car. I know for a fact that these guys blow **** up even if it was gold plated, but yet they keep buying the same **** because everyone else will label them a traitor or a poster-boy for some manufacturer. There's some people who can't operate without negative peer pressure. They wrap their positive messages in negative slants about one thing or another. You can't change them, and they are too stupid to change themselves. Yes, you are right, Gene... In this case, Internet junkies think it's cool to disrupt the amateur radio hobby because ham radio is not "IP", or it's not "fast enough", or - whatever. ( Insert anti-ham sentiment or whiney excuse here. ) You can't change them, and they are too stupid to change themselves. Kind of like a guy who insists upon sneaking a little nitro to his tank in a gas competition so that he can "win", LandLine Lids undermine the entire concept of Amateur Radio ( Using Radio, Duh! ) by using Internet links as part of the packet radio network and so are not really "winners"... They are just disruptive jerk-offs. - You can't change them, and they are too stupid to change themselves. Insects. Ham Radio is a much more serious hobby than hotrodding, in that a central part of our reason for being is to provide independent, alternative emergency communications during the course of a disaster or emergency. The activities of amateur radio operators save lives and property. We do this by developing and maintaining day to day ham radio communications so that we will be there in time of need. This has become even more important since the 9/11 attack, as the subsequent affilliation of the ARRL with the Dept. of Homeland Security would indicate to anybody who is not completely brain-dead. Non-ham communication links have no place whatsoever within an amateur radio network, as they are the very type of communications that we are supposed to be backing up. - Hopefully a few of us here are intelligent enough to understand the fact that you cannot "back up" a communications system that you are utterly dependent upon. - It would be like having a special telephone number to call, in case the phones go dead. - Useless in your hour of need. So when insectoid types disrupt the ham radio hobby by imposing unwanted, inappropriate non-ham links within our amateur packet radio network, they are not just being jerkoffs, they are directly endangering human lives and property by interfering with the ability of amateur radio operators to fulfill one of our primary reasons for being - emergency communications. Tell you what, Gene... I'll send an note to the Dept of Homeland Security and see how they feel about people deliberately interfering with hams trying to provide alternative, independent emergency communications capability. They may have some suggestions for dealing with persons who insist upon undercutting and interfering with amateur radio operators engaged in activities related to our affiliation with Homeland Defense, or may know who to talk to in the FCC about this matter. There's really no reason for hams to have to tolerate this kind of disruptive, irresponsible behavior any more. Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
"Gene Storey" wrote in message news:XbZkb.4232$5c2.1533@okepread03... I run around with some Drag racing guys (Top Fuel, Funny Cars, Gassers, etc), and just like Hams, they are super-critical about what a "true hot rodder" should have on his car. I know for a fact that these guys blow **** up even if it was gold plated, but yet they keep buying the same **** because everyone else will label them a traitor or a poster-boy for some manufacturer. There's some people who can't operate without negative peer pressure. They wrap their positive messages in negative slants about one thing or another. You can't change them, and they are too stupid to change themselves. Yes, you are right, Gene... In this case, Internet junkies think it's cool to disrupt the amateur radio hobby because ham radio is not "IP", or it's not "fast enough", or - whatever. ( Insert anti-ham sentiment or whiney excuse here. ) You can't change them, and they are too stupid to change themselves. Kind of like a guy who insists upon sneaking a little nitro to his tank in a gas competition so that he can "win", LandLine Lids undermine the entire concept of Amateur Radio ( Using Radio, Duh! ) by using Internet links as part of the packet radio network and so are not really "winners"... They are just disruptive jerk-offs. - You can't change them, and they are too stupid to change themselves. Insects. Ham Radio is a much more serious hobby than hotrodding, in that a central part of our reason for being is to provide independent, alternative emergency communications during the course of a disaster or emergency. The activities of amateur radio operators save lives and property. We do this by developing and maintaining day to day ham radio communications so that we will be there in time of need. This has become even more important since the 9/11 attack, as the subsequent affilliation of the ARRL with the Dept. of Homeland Security would indicate to anybody who is not completely brain-dead. Non-ham communication links have no place whatsoever within an amateur radio network, as they are the very type of communications that we are supposed to be backing up. - Hopefully a few of us here are intelligent enough to understand the fact that you cannot "back up" a communications system that you are utterly dependent upon. - It would be like having a special telephone number to call, in case the phones go dead. - Useless in your hour of need. So when insectoid types disrupt the ham radio hobby by imposing unwanted, inappropriate non-ham links within our amateur packet radio network, they are not just being jerkoffs, they are directly endangering human lives and property by interfering with the ability of amateur radio operators to fulfill one of our primary reasons for being - emergency communications. Tell you what, Gene... I'll send an note to the Dept of Homeland Security and see how they feel about people deliberately interfering with hams trying to provide alternative, independent emergency communications capability. They may have some suggestions for dealing with persons who insist upon undercutting and interfering with amateur radio operators engaged in activities related to our affiliation with Homeland Defense, or may know who to talk to in the FCC about this matter. There's really no reason for hams to have to tolerate this kind of disruptive, irresponsible behavior any more. Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
"Jeff Camp" wrote in message news:ni_kb.21532$iq3.2530@okepread01... Charles -- Put your money where your mouth is. If you're interested in really seeing what the Department of Homeland Security thinks about the issue, please drop them a note about me. I'd be happy to be your "test case" on internet forwarding. My contact info is good in the callbook and QRZ.COM. You'll have to settle for being "generic" unless that kind of detail is actually called for. There are dozens of gateway stations. What I will be doing is demonstrating how the imposition of non-ham links into the amateur radio digital network has undercut and interfered with that network, a result of packet/internet gateways being unregulated in the United States. I'm in a good position to do that, as I was a participant in the global HF digital network that existed prior to the introduction of non-ham links, and am aware of the mechanism by which those unwanted non-ham links destroyed the network within just a few years. It's fairly easy to demonstrate, and most packet enthusiasts who were around at the time are familiar with how it worked. There was a two-pronged approach, where some HF forwarders were starved for traffic to send, while others were grossly overloaded, way beyond capacity. Prior to the introduction of the non-ham links, the global HF net had operated smoothly and reliably. It was and still is the most significant example of global cooperation among ham radio operators - ever. Unregulated gateways destroyed that. I was also intimately associated with an advanced, large-scale VHF/UHF packet radio network (TexNet) that started replacing it's existing 9.6kb backbone links with Internet connections, and totally self-destructed within a few years of that move. When the Internet became widely available, all of the large-scale VHF/UHF packet networks naturally took a hit. - But all of them survived and are now growing again except TexNet, which is the only big packet net to completely disappear from the face of the Earth. At one time it had over 100 nodes, covering three states. All gone, now. Non-ham links are the kiss of death. I can demonstrate packet networks located overseas that operated under regulations that did not allow the imposition of non-ham links. Without exception, those networks continued to advance and grow the entire time the US network, and the global HF net were disrupted and lost coherency. Those folks use 9.6kb - 19.2kb for access these days, with a lot of the backbone being 19.2 fulldup to 72.8 fulldup. All ham radio, with voice over packet and neat stuff like that. This network has a footprint of close to 600-800 miles, maybe better. Nice what you can accomplish, when you stay on-mission and concentrate on doing things with radio. I do not think it will be hard to demonstrate that we should be doing that in the US, too. All we need is a reg that forbids the insertion of non-ham links into a ham radio network, so we can get back on-mission again. Did you know that prior to the introduction of non-ham links into the US packet network, we provided leadership to the world in this area with the most widespread, sophisticated packet network on the planet? I can also demonstrate that the only rapidly growing packet network in the US today ( 140+ nodes in a few years ) specifically does not allow non-ham links. They simply shut offenders out of the system, and stick with radio. They have the fastest growing, most advanced packet network in the US to show for it. The thing about this is: There is no recorded case of a large-scale VHF/UHF network surviving the wide-spread imposition of non-ham links. The global HF network was killed by non-ham links as soon as the Internet made them available. By way of contrast, there is no record of a packet network that banned non-ham links which has not steadily advanced and grown, the whole time. If you graph it, you can show a direct relationship between the imposition of non-ham links and the decline of a packet radio network's perf ormance and utility. It has the same end effect as malicious interference, and should be regulated as such, for that reason. Note: The idea is ban non-ham links within the ham network, not the use of gateways. Gateways are important because they provide a way for the two networks to communicate with each other, so don't look for me to propose throwing tossing the baby out with the bath water, as some have suggested. The idea is to be able to provide effective, alternate emergency communications, and gateways are essential for that task, among others. ANY tool can hurt you if you use it improperly, and can also be of great benefit if you don't grab the wrong end of it. All we need is a reg that prohibits improper use of gateways. I'll make you a deal. If they agree with you that internet forwarding should not be allowed for the purposes you have listed, then I'll gladly disconnect my system from the internet and unconditionally apologize to you here or in any forum you choose. If they decide that internet forwarding poses no threat from their perspective, you can apologize to me here and stop harassing those of us who would like to use the internet for forwarding in addition to RF. Do you have the nerve to back up what you say? I have the nerve to back up anything I say, but that does not mean that I will accept a juvenile challenge as you have put forward here. What I will do is send a note to the Homeland Security folks, as I said. Also, if you're able to work HF, then I hang out on 7261 or thereabouts after 10:00PM central time (usually 7281 before 10) and would love to have you check into the 1721 group. They don't have anything to do with packet or forwarding, but they're a great group of people and everyone's welcome. Thanks, but I hardly ever get lower than 30 meters, or use a mike on HF these days. I live at the extreme southern tip of Texas, so its doubful that we could hear each other on 40 meters in any case! Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
"Jeff Camp" wrote in message news:ni_kb.21532$iq3.2530@okepread01... Charles -- Put your money where your mouth is. If you're interested in really seeing what the Department of Homeland Security thinks about the issue, please drop them a note about me. I'd be happy to be your "test case" on internet forwarding. My contact info is good in the callbook and QRZ.COM. You'll have to settle for being "generic" unless that kind of detail is actually called for. There are dozens of gateway stations. What I will be doing is demonstrating how the imposition of non-ham links into the amateur radio digital network has undercut and interfered with that network, a result of packet/internet gateways being unregulated in the United States. I'm in a good position to do that, as I was a participant in the global HF digital network that existed prior to the introduction of non-ham links, and am aware of the mechanism by which those unwanted non-ham links destroyed the network within just a few years. It's fairly easy to demonstrate, and most packet enthusiasts who were around at the time are familiar with how it worked. There was a two-pronged approach, where some HF forwarders were starved for traffic to send, while others were grossly overloaded, way beyond capacity. Prior to the introduction of the non-ham links, the global HF net had operated smoothly and reliably. It was and still is the most significant example of global cooperation among ham radio operators - ever. Unregulated gateways destroyed that. I was also intimately associated with an advanced, large-scale VHF/UHF packet radio network (TexNet) that started replacing it's existing 9.6kb backbone links with Internet connections, and totally self-destructed within a few years of that move. When the Internet became widely available, all of the large-scale VHF/UHF packet networks naturally took a hit. - But all of them survived and are now growing again except TexNet, which is the only big packet net to completely disappear from the face of the Earth. At one time it had over 100 nodes, covering three states. All gone, now. Non-ham links are the kiss of death. I can demonstrate packet networks located overseas that operated under regulations that did not allow the imposition of non-ham links. Without exception, those networks continued to advance and grow the entire time the US network, and the global HF net were disrupted and lost coherency. Those folks use 9.6kb - 19.2kb for access these days, with a lot of the backbone being 19.2 fulldup to 72.8 fulldup. All ham radio, with voice over packet and neat stuff like that. This network has a footprint of close to 600-800 miles, maybe better. Nice what you can accomplish, when you stay on-mission and concentrate on doing things with radio. I do not think it will be hard to demonstrate that we should be doing that in the US, too. All we need is a reg that forbids the insertion of non-ham links into a ham radio network, so we can get back on-mission again. Did you know that prior to the introduction of non-ham links into the US packet network, we provided leadership to the world in this area with the most widespread, sophisticated packet network on the planet? I can also demonstrate that the only rapidly growing packet network in the US today ( 140+ nodes in a few years ) specifically does not allow non-ham links. They simply shut offenders out of the system, and stick with radio. They have the fastest growing, most advanced packet network in the US to show for it. The thing about this is: There is no recorded case of a large-scale VHF/UHF network surviving the wide-spread imposition of non-ham links. The global HF network was killed by non-ham links as soon as the Internet made them available. By way of contrast, there is no record of a packet network that banned non-ham links which has not steadily advanced and grown, the whole time. If you graph it, you can show a direct relationship between the imposition of non-ham links and the decline of a packet radio network's perf ormance and utility. It has the same end effect as malicious interference, and should be regulated as such, for that reason. Note: The idea is ban non-ham links within the ham network, not the use of gateways. Gateways are important because they provide a way for the two networks to communicate with each other, so don't look for me to propose throwing tossing the baby out with the bath water, as some have suggested. The idea is to be able to provide effective, alternate emergency communications, and gateways are essential for that task, among others. ANY tool can hurt you if you use it improperly, and can also be of great benefit if you don't grab the wrong end of it. All we need is a reg that prohibits improper use of gateways. I'll make you a deal. If they agree with you that internet forwarding should not be allowed for the purposes you have listed, then I'll gladly disconnect my system from the internet and unconditionally apologize to you here or in any forum you choose. If they decide that internet forwarding poses no threat from their perspective, you can apologize to me here and stop harassing those of us who would like to use the internet for forwarding in addition to RF. Do you have the nerve to back up what you say? I have the nerve to back up anything I say, but that does not mean that I will accept a juvenile challenge as you have put forward here. What I will do is send a note to the Homeland Security folks, as I said. Also, if you're able to work HF, then I hang out on 7261 or thereabouts after 10:00PM central time (usually 7281 before 10) and would love to have you check into the 1721 group. They don't have anything to do with packet or forwarding, but they're a great group of people and everyone's welcome. Thanks, but I hardly ever get lower than 30 meters, or use a mike on HF these days. I live at the extreme southern tip of Texas, so its doubful that we could hear each other on 40 meters in any case! Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
I'm not sure what you mean by "generic." In order to effect change, you
need to be specific. In order to initiate legislation or court directives, you have to be precise in what you're asking for. I'm volunteering to help you in your cause if you are serious. By "non-ham links" do you mean message forwarding with non-ham systems or do you mean forwarding with other licensed amateurs over the internet? I have no intention of forwarding with anyone without an amateur radio license and have always actively blocked those messages in the past. I'm aware of the TexNet situation. Replacing 9.6k links with high performance redundant messaging paths could also be called evolution. Look, I'm not advocating replacing RF links with the internet. I'm advocating using the internet to enhance an already existing messaging system. As for my "juvenile challenge," I'm just saying that if you believe so strongly in your cause, show it with action instead of endless whining and reminiscing about the way ham radio used to be 20 years ago. I'm volunteering to help you put an end to the same debate that's been going on here for years. I'd be happy with a decision in your favor or mine. Try 40 meters late at night. The band goes long starting about 10PM and I talk to people in Texas, Mexico, and Cuba, and even into South America almost every night. 73, Jeff N0WJP "charlesb" wrote in message ... "Jeff Camp" wrote in message news:ni_kb.21532$iq3.2530@okepread01... Charles -- Put your money where your mouth is. If you're interested in really seeing what the Department of Homeland Security thinks about the issue, please drop them a note about me. I'd be happy to be your "test case" on internet forwarding. My contact info is good in the callbook and QRZ.COM. You'll have to settle for being "generic" unless that kind of detail is actually called for. There are dozens of gateway stations. What I will be doing is demonstrating how the imposition of non-ham links into the amateur radio digital network has undercut and interfered with that network, a result of packet/internet gateways being unregulated in the United States. I'm in a good position to do that, as I was a participant in the global HF digital network that existed prior to the introduction of non-ham links, and am aware of the mechanism by which those unwanted non-ham links destroyed the network within just a few years. It's fairly easy to demonstrate, and most packet enthusiasts who were around at the time are familiar with how it worked. There was a two-pronged approach, where some HF forwarders were starved for traffic to send, while others were grossly overloaded, way beyond capacity. Prior to the introduction of the non-ham links, the global HF net had operated smoothly and reliably. It was and still is the most significant example of global cooperation among ham radio operators - ever. Unregulated gateways destroyed that. I was also intimately associated with an advanced, large-scale VHF/UHF packet radio network (TexNet) that started replacing it's existing 9.6kb backbone links with Internet connections, and totally self-destructed within a few years of that move. When the Internet became widely available, all of the large-scale VHF/UHF packet networks naturally took a hit. - But all of them survived and are now growing again except TexNet, which is the only big packet net to completely disappear from the face of the Earth. At one time it had over 100 nodes, covering three states. All gone, now. Non-ham links are the kiss of death. I can demonstrate packet networks located overseas that operated under regulations that did not allow the imposition of non-ham links. Without exception, those networks continued to advance and grow the entire time the US network, and the global HF net were disrupted and lost coherency. Those folks use 9.6kb - 19.2kb for access these days, with a lot of the backbone being 19.2 fulldup to 72.8 fulldup. All ham radio, with voice over packet and neat stuff like that. This network has a footprint of close to 600-800 miles, maybe better. Nice what you can accomplish, when you stay on-mission and concentrate on doing things with radio. I do not think it will be hard to demonstrate that we should be doing that in the US, too. All we need is a reg that forbids the insertion of non-ham links into a ham radio network, so we can get back on-mission again. Did you know that prior to the introduction of non-ham links into the US packet network, we provided leadership to the world in this area with the most widespread, sophisticated packet network on the planet? I can also demonstrate that the only rapidly growing packet network in the US today ( 140+ nodes in a few years ) specifically does not allow non-ham links. They simply shut offenders out of the system, and stick with radio. They have the fastest growing, most advanced packet network in the US to show for it. The thing about this is: There is no recorded case of a large-scale VHF/UHF network surviving the wide-spread imposition of non-ham links. The global HF network was killed by non-ham links as soon as the Internet made them available. By way of contrast, there is no record of a packet network that banned non-ham links which has not steadily advanced and grown, the whole time. If you graph it, you can show a direct relationship between the imposition of non-ham links and the decline of a packet radio network's perf ormance and utility. It has the same end effect as malicious interference, and should be regulated as such, for that reason. Note: The idea is ban non-ham links within the ham network, not the use of gateways. Gateways are important because they provide a way for the two networks to communicate with each other, so don't look for me to propose throwing tossing the baby out with the bath water, as some have suggested. The idea is to be able to provide effective, alternate emergency communications, and gateways are essential for that task, among others. ANY tool can hurt you if you use it improperly, and can also be of great benefit if you don't grab the wrong end of it. All we need is a reg that prohibits improper use of gateways. I'll make you a deal. If they agree with you that internet forwarding should not be allowed for the purposes you have listed, then I'll gladly disconnect my system from the internet and unconditionally apologize to you here or in any forum you choose. If they decide that internet forwarding poses no threat from their perspective, you can apologize to me here and stop harassing those of us who would like to use the internet for forwarding in addition to RF. Do you have the nerve to back up what you say? I have the nerve to back up anything I say, but that does not mean that I will accept a juvenile challenge as you have put forward here. What I will do is send a note to the Homeland Security folks, as I said. Also, if you're able to work HF, then I hang out on 7261 or thereabouts after 10:00PM central time (usually 7281 before 10) and would love to have you check into the 1721 group. They don't have anything to do with packet or forwarding, but they're a great group of people and everyone's welcome. Thanks, but I hardly ever get lower than 30 meters, or use a mike on HF these days. I live at the extreme southern tip of Texas, so its doubful that we could hear each other on 40 meters in any case! Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
I'm not sure what you mean by "generic." In order to effect change, you
need to be specific. In order to initiate legislation or court directives, you have to be precise in what you're asking for. I'm volunteering to help you in your cause if you are serious. By "non-ham links" do you mean message forwarding with non-ham systems or do you mean forwarding with other licensed amateurs over the internet? I have no intention of forwarding with anyone without an amateur radio license and have always actively blocked those messages in the past. I'm aware of the TexNet situation. Replacing 9.6k links with high performance redundant messaging paths could also be called evolution. Look, I'm not advocating replacing RF links with the internet. I'm advocating using the internet to enhance an already existing messaging system. As for my "juvenile challenge," I'm just saying that if you believe so strongly in your cause, show it with action instead of endless whining and reminiscing about the way ham radio used to be 20 years ago. I'm volunteering to help you put an end to the same debate that's been going on here for years. I'd be happy with a decision in your favor or mine. Try 40 meters late at night. The band goes long starting about 10PM and I talk to people in Texas, Mexico, and Cuba, and even into South America almost every night. 73, Jeff N0WJP "charlesb" wrote in message ... "Jeff Camp" wrote in message news:ni_kb.21532$iq3.2530@okepread01... Charles -- Put your money where your mouth is. If you're interested in really seeing what the Department of Homeland Security thinks about the issue, please drop them a note about me. I'd be happy to be your "test case" on internet forwarding. My contact info is good in the callbook and QRZ.COM. You'll have to settle for being "generic" unless that kind of detail is actually called for. There are dozens of gateway stations. What I will be doing is demonstrating how the imposition of non-ham links into the amateur radio digital network has undercut and interfered with that network, a result of packet/internet gateways being unregulated in the United States. I'm in a good position to do that, as I was a participant in the global HF digital network that existed prior to the introduction of non-ham links, and am aware of the mechanism by which those unwanted non-ham links destroyed the network within just a few years. It's fairly easy to demonstrate, and most packet enthusiasts who were around at the time are familiar with how it worked. There was a two-pronged approach, where some HF forwarders were starved for traffic to send, while others were grossly overloaded, way beyond capacity. Prior to the introduction of the non-ham links, the global HF net had operated smoothly and reliably. It was and still is the most significant example of global cooperation among ham radio operators - ever. Unregulated gateways destroyed that. I was also intimately associated with an advanced, large-scale VHF/UHF packet radio network (TexNet) that started replacing it's existing 9.6kb backbone links with Internet connections, and totally self-destructed within a few years of that move. When the Internet became widely available, all of the large-scale VHF/UHF packet networks naturally took a hit. - But all of them survived and are now growing again except TexNet, which is the only big packet net to completely disappear from the face of the Earth. At one time it had over 100 nodes, covering three states. All gone, now. Non-ham links are the kiss of death. I can demonstrate packet networks located overseas that operated under regulations that did not allow the imposition of non-ham links. Without exception, those networks continued to advance and grow the entire time the US network, and the global HF net were disrupted and lost coherency. Those folks use 9.6kb - 19.2kb for access these days, with a lot of the backbone being 19.2 fulldup to 72.8 fulldup. All ham radio, with voice over packet and neat stuff like that. This network has a footprint of close to 600-800 miles, maybe better. Nice what you can accomplish, when you stay on-mission and concentrate on doing things with radio. I do not think it will be hard to demonstrate that we should be doing that in the US, too. All we need is a reg that forbids the insertion of non-ham links into a ham radio network, so we can get back on-mission again. Did you know that prior to the introduction of non-ham links into the US packet network, we provided leadership to the world in this area with the most widespread, sophisticated packet network on the planet? I can also demonstrate that the only rapidly growing packet network in the US today ( 140+ nodes in a few years ) specifically does not allow non-ham links. They simply shut offenders out of the system, and stick with radio. They have the fastest growing, most advanced packet network in the US to show for it. The thing about this is: There is no recorded case of a large-scale VHF/UHF network surviving the wide-spread imposition of non-ham links. The global HF network was killed by non-ham links as soon as the Internet made them available. By way of contrast, there is no record of a packet network that banned non-ham links which has not steadily advanced and grown, the whole time. If you graph it, you can show a direct relationship between the imposition of non-ham links and the decline of a packet radio network's perf ormance and utility. It has the same end effect as malicious interference, and should be regulated as such, for that reason. Note: The idea is ban non-ham links within the ham network, not the use of gateways. Gateways are important because they provide a way for the two networks to communicate with each other, so don't look for me to propose throwing tossing the baby out with the bath water, as some have suggested. The idea is to be able to provide effective, alternate emergency communications, and gateways are essential for that task, among others. ANY tool can hurt you if you use it improperly, and can also be of great benefit if you don't grab the wrong end of it. All we need is a reg that prohibits improper use of gateways. I'll make you a deal. If they agree with you that internet forwarding should not be allowed for the purposes you have listed, then I'll gladly disconnect my system from the internet and unconditionally apologize to you here or in any forum you choose. If they decide that internet forwarding poses no threat from their perspective, you can apologize to me here and stop harassing those of us who would like to use the internet for forwarding in addition to RF. Do you have the nerve to back up what you say? I have the nerve to back up anything I say, but that does not mean that I will accept a juvenile challenge as you have put forward here. What I will do is send a note to the Homeland Security folks, as I said. Also, if you're able to work HF, then I hang out on 7261 or thereabouts after 10:00PM central time (usually 7281 before 10) and would love to have you check into the 1721 group. They don't have anything to do with packet or forwarding, but they're a great group of people and everyone's welcome. Thanks, but I hardly ever get lower than 30 meters, or use a mike on HF these days. I live at the extreme southern tip of Texas, so its doubful that we could hear each other on 40 meters in any case! Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
"Jeff Camp" wrote in message news:Ro_kb.21543$iq3.19437@okepread01... Hank, I'm glad to see you have the same closed mind and "in the box" thinking that you did a couple of years ago. My friend, I spend most of my time in this hobby working different modes on HF, VHF, UHF and microwave and almost no time on packet. That is quite clear! If you feel better calling me a land line lid, then have at it. Also, take a look at my earlier reply to Charles. You can feel free to put your money where your mouth is, too. Just what band and mode are you operating when you play pretend radio over the internet? 73, Jeff N0WJP -- ... Hank Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net |
"Jeff Camp" wrote in message news:Ro_kb.21543$iq3.19437@okepread01... Hank, I'm glad to see you have the same closed mind and "in the box" thinking that you did a couple of years ago. My friend, I spend most of my time in this hobby working different modes on HF, VHF, UHF and microwave and almost no time on packet. That is quite clear! If you feel better calling me a land line lid, then have at it. Also, take a look at my earlier reply to Charles. You can feel free to put your money where your mouth is, too. Just what band and mode are you operating when you play pretend radio over the internet? 73, Jeff N0WJP -- ... Hank Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net |
"Gene Storey" wrote in message news:XbZkb.4232$5c2.1533@okepread03... I run around with some Drag racing guys (Top Fuel, Funny Cars, Gassers, etc), and just like Hams, they are super-critical about what a "true hot rodder" should have on his car. Yup, that's the key. "... on his car ...". What do you think about the guys who bring jet airplanes to the meet and then tell you your racers are boring, slow, and the wave of the future is airplanes. Then he gets all over the strip and won't go away and you don't get to race anymore. Does that help you locate a clue? -- ... Hank Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net |
"Gene Storey" wrote in message news:XbZkb.4232$5c2.1533@okepread03... I run around with some Drag racing guys (Top Fuel, Funny Cars, Gassers, etc), and just like Hams, they are super-critical about what a "true hot rodder" should have on his car. Yup, that's the key. "... on his car ...". What do you think about the guys who bring jet airplanes to the meet and then tell you your racers are boring, slow, and the wave of the future is airplanes. Then he gets all over the strip and won't go away and you don't get to race anymore. Does that help you locate a clue? -- ... Hank Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net |
"Jeff Camp" wrote in message news:ni_kb.21532$iq3.2530@okepread01... Charles -- Put your money where your mouth is. If you're interested in really seeing what the Department of Homeland Security thinks about the issue, please drop them a note about me. I'd be happy to be your "test case" on internet forwarding. My contact info is good in the callbook and QRZ.COM. "Ha ha ha, I'm going to screw up your network and you can't stop me!" I'll make you a deal. Sorry, no deals with lids. Not with pirates or jammers either. -- ... Hank Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net |
"Jeff Camp" wrote in message news:ni_kb.21532$iq3.2530@okepread01... Charles -- Put your money where your mouth is. If you're interested in really seeing what the Department of Homeland Security thinks about the issue, please drop them a note about me. I'd be happy to be your "test case" on internet forwarding. My contact info is good in the callbook and QRZ.COM. "Ha ha ha, I'm going to screw up your network and you can't stop me!" I'll make you a deal. Sorry, no deals with lids. Not with pirates or jammers either. -- ... Hank Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net |
I think you need to start taking your medications again. Your head
must be about ready to explode with so much blood out of circulation. Anyone who thinks FEMA needs Hams to do its job is severely crippled in the brain department. They laugh when a bunch of old men show up with their talkies to help in an emergency, and to get them off their back, they assign them to the chuck wagons, or water-boy stations. FEMA is equipped to drive into any town and blow away any problem. That one rig they have can instantly hook-up to the national infrastructure outside the disaster area, that Hams are left scratching their asses. Hams missed the boat on microsats. They were the first in space with that concept, and then they threw it away, and spent all their money (millions) on the Phase-III pig that is mostly off on any pass over the US. I've asked at our club how many are going to buy the AOR digital voice modem (designed by a UK Ham), and they all just laughed and asked what could it do that our repeater or BBS can't! After telling them how it would improve long distance communications, and voice quality in the same space as SSB, they just shrugged. Who cares! SSB is good enough they said. Hoo-rah said the amen corner... Sorry, Mr. Director, it's a dead hobby. Made up of dead people in line to get their SK award from the ARRL (who hasn't changed leadership in 20+ years). Gene, ex-Ham "charlesb" wrote Tell you what, Gene... I'll send an note to the Dept of Homeland Security and see how they feel about people deliberately interfering with hams trying to provide alternative, independent emergency communications capability. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:12 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com