1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. alt.ham-radio.packet

  • Amateur Radio Respect, and Warning

    From KG6BAJ@no.spam@no.spam to alt.ham-radio.packet,alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf,alt.radio.scanner on Thu Feb 10 11:29:54 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.ham-radio.packet

    I find it sad that amateur radio operators feel the need to loose respect
    for each other just because these newsgroups are *mainly* accessed from the internet.

    Mention the "internet" aspect of these forums and suddenly people feel it's
    ok to bash, curse, and make all out war with each other.

    I should remind all that these newsgroups are also fed in and out of packet radio BBS stations and read and replied to over RF in nearly all countries utilizing packet BBS's.

    Your name calling, cursing and war-ing all go out over the air ways and do nothing to foster and promote the art of amateur radio.

    KG6BAJ (BILL) KG6BAJ.#NCA.CA.USA.NOAM
    Grass Valley, Ca. USA. CM99LF
    Email <-> Packet: kg6baj@gvcity.ampr.org
    AMPR Net IP Coordinator - No. Calif.


    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From No Body@nobody@nowhere.com to alt.ham-radio.packet on Sun Feb 13 22:42:03 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.ham-radio.packet

    On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:29:54 -0800, KG6BAJ <no.spam@no.spam> wrote:
    I find it sad that amateur radio operators feel the need to loose respect
    for each other just because these newsgroups are *mainly* accessed from the internet.
    [snip]

    I should remind all that these newsgroups are also fed in and out of packet radio BBS stations and read and replied to over RF in nearly all countries utilizing packet BBS's.

    Which brings up an interesting point.

    As control operator of a packet bbs, you are required to abide by the
    FCC regs.

    Unless you filter and release each message to the RF side, how are you
    sure that the message that just got sent isn't in violation of the regs?

    Since the traffic is also carried by "common carrier" public services,
    how do you avoid the problem that Hams are not allowed to act as
    "common carriers"?

    The same situation bothers me with respect to ARES operations which use
    DSTARS to provide email etc to served agencies. So long as that traffic
    is clearly "emergancy" traffic, it's probably ok.. but what happens when
    it's not? Unless you monitor and release each message, how do you know?
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From John Harbl@jharbl@harbl.com to alt.ham-radio.packet,alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf,alt.radio.scanner on Sun Feb 13 18:13:48 2011
    From Newsgroup: alt.ham-radio.packet

    On 2/13/11 5:42 PM, No Body wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:29:54 -0800, KG6BAJ <no.spam@no.spam> wrote:
    I find it sad that amateur radio operators feel the need to loose respect
    for each other just because these newsgroups are *mainly* accessed from the >> internet.
    [snip]

    I should remind all that these newsgroups are also fed in and out of packet >> radio BBS stations and read and replied to over RF in nearly all countries >> utilizing packet BBS's.

    Which brings up an interesting point.

    Just FYI in case anyone else may be thinking of jumping in on this: this
    same thread was also posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors, and rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc.

    Not that I'm saying to anyone that you *shouldn't* say your piece (far
    from it, in fact), but just letting everyone know that it's been beaten
    out in other newsgroups.

    - J.
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2