| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
March 31st 05, 09:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message k.net... "nana" wrote in message ... "wonderer" wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message et... "Simon VK3XEM" wrote in message ... Get over it! Go back to your CW if you want, who bothers you or bags you for using it, I know I certainly don't. -- The views I present are my own and NOT of any organisation I belong to. 73 de Simon, VK3XEM. http://www.aca.gov.au/pls/radcom/cli...IENT_NO=157452 VoIP http://www.TALKonIP.com.au/ Thanks for bringing this up Mate!. My major problem is folks refering to interconnecting "hams" over the internet as "ham radio". Ham radio is R A D I O . Not INTERNET connected to Nodes then to a radio somewhere. Call it whatever you want, but it is NOT ham radio. Dan/W4NTI does this also mean we cannot place the receiver for 10M some distance away(1Km) to stop desensitisng the receiver as the of set is narrow, the receiver and transmitter are connected by landline ?????????. Alf VK5ZKL Dans' main problem was that he did not fully (or even partly) understand the operation of IRLP and the security systems designed to prevent access. I don't think he understood Echolink either and had the two confused as being one and the same animal. Walt was just plain ignorant. Brad. Correct....in fact I think IRLP is the best choice if one is going to use any form of internet with ham radio. Dan/W4NTI Yayyyy!!!!!!!!! Brad. |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Ohio/Penn DX Bulletin #697 | General | |||
| Ohio/Penn DX Bulletin #682 | Dx | |||
| Ohio/Penn DX Bulletin #682 | Dx | |||
| Ohio/Penn DX Bulletin #682 | General | |||
| Ohio/Penn DX Bulletin #682 | Info | |||
Threaded Mode
