HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gw214790@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Galen Watts)
Subject: Re: Language on the net (was Re: Closed repeaters)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:47:42 GMT
Organization: The Bug Jay Maynard Society

In article <8573@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <Jan27.175006.47745@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> gw214790@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Galen Watts) writes:
>>In article <8565@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>>I don't think that this is a Marine barracks either, but, as I told Jon Bloom,
>>>there are times that other words don't fit.
>>Try "60 days to a more effective vocabulary".  There are words that do fit
>>that are not offensive to anyone.
>
>Sorry. I can only disagree.
>If you are that easily offended, how do you function in society?

The ease at which I'm offended depends on the individual situation.
I am not as easily offended as the minister down the street, but obviously 
I am more easily offended than you.  When offended, I sometimes go
for long walks near my rural home, or just laugh at the limited
vocabulary of those that offend me.
>
>>Some of us aren't prudes and don't swear when we injure ourselves.
>
>I can only admire your forbearance. Would that it were not associated with
>blatant prudery and offensensitivity.

My forbearance comes from long experience in how not to injure myself
when performing menial tasks.  If my prudery is blatant, then your
capacity to offend must be infinite.

This is fun,
Galen Watts, KF0YJ and president of the Bug Jay Maynard Society. 

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change
Date: 25 Jan 1993 16:52:02 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan24.182428.28564@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Slander, or libel as Jay says, is the type of risk you open yourself
>up to when you have a publication. Reasonably prudent publishers carry
>insurance for such cases, and exercise some editorial care not to spread
>gossip or tell tales out of school.

We exercised such care, which is why the case had little legal foundation in
the first place. Insurance? Have you priced such lately?

>Gannett gets sued about once a week
>on average. We never settle, we nearly never lose, and we never let a suit 
>interfere with the conduct of our business. In fact, it's turned into a 
>minor profit center for the company since we've started getting damage 
>awards for frivolous suits under tort reform.

Gannett is also several orders of magnitude larger than the Texas VHF-FM
Society, and can afford to defend such cases vigorously.

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    "I don't want to read poor Microsoft bashing. I want to read good
Microsoft bashing." -- Douglas A. Bell, in comp.os.os2.advocacy (Me too!)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:38:02 GMT

In article <8530@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <C1DHyE.3Kz@hpuerca.atl.hp.com> der@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Dave Ritchie) writes:
>>  Jay, why is this person your enemy? Could it be something that you or
>>your group has done? Fundamentally, you can not force your enemies to like
>>you - but it is indeed possible to have your enemies become allies. I would
>>argue that your approach to the problem is as much a cause of the problem
>>as the individuals who are interfering with you. 
>
>The systems are closed because they've been overrun with lids in the past who
>simply want to use the links to talk to their buddies across the state
>without helping out with the considerable work and expense involved. It's sad
>that there are freeloaders who only want to take, but it's a fact of life.
>
>You argue that we have provoked the response. For a new ham who gets on,
>decides that he doesn't like closed repeaters, and starts jamming, that may be
>true, but the history stretches farther back than that.
>
>>  The optimal approach is to not create enemies in the first place. How?
>>I would argue that making systems that are not exclusionary is the answer. 
>>Also, education of the user community on how to use the equipment is 
>>important also.
>
>So how do you solve the original problem that led to closed systems? You can't
>legislate that someone be generous...

Nor can an amateur *charge* for the use of his station. He can turn it
off, or he can let it operate, but he can't require payment. 97.113(b).
That applies to pay to play autopatches too as far as I'm concerned.
Clubs that charge "autopatch" dues separate from club membership are
skating on thin ice.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | 
From: alanb@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Alan Bloom)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:14:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Pres. Clinton speech via Packet?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy

In rec.radio.amateur.policy, steve@zero.com (Steve Urich) writes:

>	Just wondering what the legal implications are if one would resent
>	Pres. Clintons enaugural speech via packet? I read the speech and
>	it looks pretty harmless, more like poetry :-). 

If it is sent in a 2-way QSO with another station, no problem.  If it is
broadcast via a packet BBS bulletin, then it violates the restrictions
on broadcasting:

     97.113 (c)  No station shall transmit communications in order to
     engage in any form of broadcasting... 

     97.3 (10)  Broadcasting.  Transmissions intended for reception
     by the general public, either direct or relayed.  ...
     (23) Informational bulletin.  A message directed only to amateur
     operators consisting solely of subject matter of direct interest
     to the amateur service.

     97.111 (b) In addition to one-way transmissions specifically 
     authorized elsewhere in this Part, an amateur station may transmit
     the following types of one-way communications:   ...
     (6)  Transmissions necessary to disseminate information bulletins.

In other words, you can send bulletins of interest to the amateur service 
as such, but not bulletins of interest to the general public.

>	... I know there is a limitation of
>	political qsos with stations ``outside'' of the usa.

I know of no legal limitation on political QSOs.  It's probably a good
idea to steer clear of controversial political discussions, however,
because they can so easily degenerate to shouting matches, which does
no good for amateur radio.

AL N1AL

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 05:00:38 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change

jab@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Alan Barrow) writes:

>I am coming to the conclusion that the systems that you guys are
>defending have flawed topology/design, as these are non-issues in the
>systems I have seen.

>SELA (South Eastern Linking Assoc) has communicated with the Cactus
>folks, and found the technology and attitudes lacking. (It does work,
>but did not appear to be anything outstanding, per the SELA member
>I discussed this with.)

Alan, I think we're zooming in on the problem here.  According to 
Jay the Lesser, this system, the product of Superior Texas Intellect,  
is too fragile to risk having someone not authorized key on the input, are 
so afraid of outsiders that they check the call of anyone new against their 
Holy Roster and invite strangers to leave and can't seem to operate without
throwing lawyers at each other.  Then we have to consider how
Jay explodes at the mere mention of Morris.

Methinks the problem is they are simply a bunch of incompetent asses.
To rephrase Jay somewhat, these kinds of hams bring shame to us all.
If this isn't a case history study against closed repeaters, I've never 
seen one.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 16:38:16 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan24.012557.1356@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:
>Seems to me the society should have just "waited the guy out,"
>rather than settle.  Anyway, if that's the best (only) example
>of a case related to the coordinator issue it sure doesn't warrant
>being paranoid about the FCC possibly changing things in the future.

We chose to settle on that basis because it cost us nothing to print the
materials in the newsletter. Waiting the guy out, and taking him to court,
would have cost us money, and many of our officers time away from work. That
case was bad enough, and we had a solid legal footing. The results of changing
our coordination procedures, and removing out solid legal footing there,
woulld be that much worse: more suits, and more costs to defend them.

>From what I've learned, the
>initial act of "suing" is usually just a scare tactic on the hopes
>of forcing the "defendent" to capitulate on whatever the issue/position
>is.

...and, as an elected official, you have the resources of the city behind you
to absorb the heavy legal costs of the defense. Coordinators have no such
legal safety net available.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    "I don't want to read poor Microsoft bashing. I want to read good
Microsoft bashing." -- Douglas A. Bell, in comp.os.os2.advocacy (Me too!)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 21:30:07 GMT

 In article <1993Jan19.223419.13226@btree.uucp> bly@btree.uucp (Roger Bly) writes:

>Some buddies and I have been fighting the battle against closed, money-
>gathering repeaters since the late 1970s.  We have used litigation and
>"jamming" as means to persuade closed repeaters to open or release their
  -------
>pair.

And you're 'proud' of this ?  You really don't have a clue, do you .

   John Rice        K9IJ  
   rice@ttd.teradyne.com
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:50:10 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

Once more into the breach, dear friends...

In article <1993Jan26.183209.9439@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Well I always thought these closed systems were thinly disguised commercial
>operations, now we know for sure. And from some of the access fees quoted 
>out of SoCal, apparently very profitable ventures as well. If you want to
>operate machines for pay, Jay, then go into the commercial service where
>you belong. Reread 97.113(b) before you flame. You can't *require* payment
>for use of your radio station.

Nor am I. I'm asking that folks support the system if they wish to use it;
this is out of fairness for the others who do so. That support can take many
forms.

If you think the system here is a profit center, then I'd invite you to try to
convince my banker of that. He'll laugh in your face.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    "I don't want to read poor Microsoft bashing. I want to read good
Microsoft bashing." -- Douglas A. Bell, in comp.os.os2.advocacy (Me too!)
From: kurt@cs.tamu.edu (Kurt Freiberger)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 20:09:21 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Texas A&M University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: dsls2.cs.tamu.edu
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change

In article <5l-s9wh@dixie.com>, jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
|> 
|> I've been on the sending end of a lawsuit or two.  What you say is not

I can believe that.

|> true.  Damages are awarded either as actual or punitive.  Actual
|> damages are to compensate the winner for his actual losses.  Since 
|> there is by definition, no business transaction involved in coordination,
|> there are no actual damages.  Punitive damages are to "teach the rascal
|> a lesson", as my shark phrased it.  There generally must be malice or
|> gross negligence present in order to collect punitive damages.

As I originally said, this is entirely on the breed of shyster each side
hires.  They are paid to twist things to the side of their client.  There
are ways and then there are ways.

|> If the coordinator appears a bit more reasonable than Jay and can 
|> explain himself as obeying the FCC rules as he understands them
|> and as they have been explained to him, ain't gonna be no punitive
|> damages.  If the coordinator explains to the jury that the real
|> conflict is between a bunch of elitists operating a closed repeater and

Careful, your bias is showing.

|> someone operating a repeater for the benefit of the public as specified
|> in part 97, the jury may likely REVERSE the damages.  I'd sure not want
|> to try to defend a closed repeater to a jury.

If your shyster can do that, he has demonstrated my point.  The law obtains
in this instance, not some value judgement on "what is benefit to the public".
Closed repeaters are operating within the law.  The value judgement as to the
proper mode of operation as regards the common man is not the law.

|> Can  you imagine Jay defending himself to a jury?  :-)

More easily than your defense attempts.

-- 
Kurt Freiberger, wb5bbw	  kurt@cs.tamu.edu   409/847-8607  fax:409/847-8578
Dept. of Computer Science, Texas A&M University      DoD #264: BMW R80/7 pilot
"We preserve our freedom using three boxes: ballot, jury, and cartridge."
      *** Not an official document of Texas A&M University ***
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jab@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Alan Barrow)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:40:33 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard NARC Atlanta
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change

In <8559@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>Actually, what I was driving at was that those of us who have been running
>systems on the 440 band for years were told to go off and populate a
>then-unused band; those who are screaming for spectrum now have lots
>available, on the same terms as we had to put up with. Your buddies are doing
>the right thing; would that others would do so as well.

I agree that those who desire spectrum should pioneer the higher bands.

I disagree with the implication (maybe misread from you, but stated by 
others in this argument) that no one used 440 until recently except the closed 
rptr crowd. The "what is this 2nd band on my new HT... Gee these guys don't
like me!" argument for closed repeaters. (Repeatedly quoted by a certain
Usenet/ham in San Diego.)

Both locally and in surrounding states, the majority of 440 repeaters
were pioneers, but remained open. (I *know* about Fla and Ga.)
Note that PL does not automatically mean closed.

My first 440 operations were in the 70's (when I was licensed) on 444.5
here in Atlanta. I have been on 440 pretty much since then, and is my
band of choice. 

The way the large group mentioned earlier avoids congestion is by
promoting new bands, having local qso rptrs, using simplex when
appropriate, etc. (One "feature" could only be obtained by getting
active on 220, to help promote band usage, and prevent crowding)

I still think trunking technology could be modified, and useful to hams.
I will take many players to make a go of it, but until we have a
technical revolution (spread spectrum?), we may have to get smarter in
our designs. 

Again, is a full duplex NBFM repeater (regardless of links, remote bases, etc) 
that much to be proud of? In the days of DSP's, AMSAT, cheap CODEC's, etc, I 
think we can do better.


 Alan Barrow  km4ba | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack
 jab@atl.hp.com     | ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched
                    | C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
 ..!gatech!kd4nc!   | All those moments will be lost in time -
         km4ba!alan | like tears in rain. Time to die.          Roy Batty
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change
Date: 25 Jan 1993 16:43:15 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <C1DHyE.3Kz@hpuerca.atl.hp.com> der@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Dave Ritchie) writes:
>  Jay, why is this person your enemy? Could it be something that you or
>your group has done? Fundamentally, you can not force your enemies to like
>you - but it is indeed possible to have your enemies become allies. I would
>argue that your approach to the problem is as much a cause of the problem
>as the individuals who are interfering with you. 

The systems are closed because they've been overrun with lids in the past who
simply want to use the links to talk to their buddies across the state
without helping out with the considerable work and expense involved. It's sad
that there are freeloaders who only want to take, but it's a fact of life.

You argue that we have provoked the response. For a new ham who gets on,
decides that he doesn't like closed repeaters, and starts jamming, that may be
true, but the history stretches farther back than that.

>  The optimal approach is to not create enemies in the first place. How?
>I would argue that making systems that are not exclusionary is the answer. 
>Also, education of the user community on how to use the equipment is 
>important also.

So how do you solve the original problem that led to closed systems? You can't
legislate that someone be generous...
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    "I don't want to read poor Microsoft bashing. I want to read good
Microsoft bashing." -- Douglas A. Bell, in comp.os.os2.advocacy (Me too!)
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Language on the net (was Re: Closed repeaters)
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:49:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: lib.8573
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <Jan27.175006.47745@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> gw214790@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Galen Watts) writes:
>In article <8565@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>I don't think that this is a Marine barracks either, but, as I told Jon Bloom,
>>there are times that other words don't fit.
>Try "60 days to a more effective vocabulary".  There are words that do fit
>that are not offensive to anyone.

Sorry. I can only disagree.

If you are that easily offended, how do you function in society?

>Some of us aren't prudes and don't swear when we injure ourselves.

I can only admire your forbearance. Would that it were not associated with
blatant prudery and offensensitivity.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    "begin 666 foo 266]U(&AA=F4@;F\@;&EF92X: ` end" -- Daniel Drucker
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 10:06:01 GMT

In article <8486@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>
>1) Doing this will destroy any last vestiges of experimentation in the amateur
>service. Many experimental repeaters are closed for a good reason: the
>uninitiated can do damage to the machine if they don't do things right. Others
>are closed because they're linked from here to forever and having the whole
>ham world in each city in between on them would quickly make them completely
>unusable.

Any machine that can be damaged by a station transmitting on it's input
is so badly designed that it *deserves* to be damaged. I can't believe
that you keep throwing out this chestnut. Limit switches, circuit breakers,
overload trips, interlocks, thermal switches, surge protectors, EMP rated
gas discharge systems, they've all been available to equipment designers 
for decades. Failure to use proper protective equipment should be cause 
for getting your machine kicked off a commercial site as a hazard. 

There's nothing short of nuclear EMP that can occur on the input of my
machine that can cause equipment damage. I *think* it can survive that
because it certainly survives direct lightning strikes, but I haven't
had an opportunity to give it the ultimate EMP test. Anybody got a 
spare nuke?

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |
From: .phillip.laird@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us ( Phillip Laird) 
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: START CONF
Date: 19 Jan 93 21:24:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, W-NET HQ, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Reply-To: .phillip.laird@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us ( Phillip Laird) 
Keywords: chuckle

This is a seed message.
M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M..
M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M..1
.M.M.M.M.M.M.M N+'.+".+..+..+..+..+~.+p.+h.+_.+R.+J.+B.+.+.+
.+y.+r.+i.+b.+U.+O.
---
 . CNet 1.21 . The HAM Connection BBS, 409-833-1795 14.4K Hayes V.32BIS/V.42BIS
                                                                                                                               
----
| HAL 9000 BBS +1 313 663 4173 or 663 3959 | Four 14.4k v.32bis dial-ins |
| Public Access QWK-to-Usenet gateway      | With PCBoard 14.5aM & uuPCB |
+----------------------------+-------------+--------+--------------------+
| Member of EFF, ASP, & ASAD | 1.5 Gigabytes Online | Service since 1988 |