HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: 22 Jan 1993 15:37:59 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <C16FF4.5oI@hpuerca.atl.hp.com> jab@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Alan Barrow) writes:
>How does linking required closed repeaters? I know for a fact you can
>have extensive multi repeater linked systems with open machines.
>(We do it here in GA, I have used others in New England, Seattle, etc)

>The local linked repeaters consider linking the same as autopatches,
>restricted to club members. Anyone can use a repeater to communicate. 
>But linking, DVR, patches, etc are club restricted functions. This is
>legal, and what the FCC seems to intend by the regs.

You've been listening to Gary Coffman's semantic quibbling too long. 97.205(e)
means exactly what it says: limiting use of a repeater to certain user
stations is permissible.

What do your local clubs do when a conversation is going on down the link and
a non-member comes on? Do you run him off, or do you drop off the link, or do
you let him use the restricted functions anyway? In the last two cases, your
club is letting non-members dictate what you do with your repeater.

>You control the rptr output. If you want the non-club member using the 
>repeater on the remote end to go away when you enable your link, then do
>it. You are not interfering with his transmission. *You*, the repeater 
>operator determine which receiver gets repeated.

...but if I'm in the middle of a conversation with folks in Austin, Dallas,
Midland, and Corpus Christi, and someone comes on locally who, far from
supporting my repeater, is an active opponent of it, what would you have me
do? I choose not to let him run me off of my system, interfering with my
conversation.

(This is not a hypothetical. It has happened here. Repeatedly.)

>Where did he say "fully". Only the local repeater need be open. You want
>to play ancilliary functions, you pay the dues. Nope, I just see more
>word twisting. 

Sorry; I've just shot that argument down. Next?

>The repeater operator makes the decision whether to repeat the signal on
>his input frequency. If he elects to not repeat that signal, he has
>effectively "vacated" the frequency for that duration. So turn off your
>repeater, take your toys home, whatever. That is your decision.

...so, in essence, you want me to let others dictate how I use my amateur
station. Da, Comrade.

>Does anyone *really* care about FM rptrs that much? They are a tool, not
>a lifestyle. 

The open repeater comrades apparently do...

>Time to do something productive.

Yep. Why aren't these folks working to populate 1200 and 900, rather than
whining about closed repeaters? We populated 440 when it was in about the same
state that 1200 is now...
-- 
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: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change
Date: 22 Jan 1993 20:27:30 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <Jan22.192346.16125@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> gw214790@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Galen Watts) writes:
>As for the use of language along the lines of Mr. Maynard's,  did you
>consider the possibility of younger hams reading his comments?  
>The language used by Mr. Maynard does nothing but give his opponent
>another look from me, and gives me the impression Mr. Maynard does not
>have the command of the English language he needs to present a convincing
>argument.
>I often use such language myself, but not where the possibility of someone
>below the age of 12 can hear me.  Ditto for my mother.

I have found, in my years of arguing issues that provoke passionate responses
from the participants, that using words used mainly by folks with more than
50,000 word vocabularies is often counterproductive, for it leaves most folks
wondering what it was that you just said. For the average person, expletives,
used sparingly, convey an expressive power unmatched by more commonplace
words, and the old saying that their use is an indicator of the inadequacy of
the vocabulary of the speaker, besides being utterly false, is nothing more
than an attempt to accomplish the impossible: to socially engineer them out of
the language. My use of such terms in writing is extremely rare, and reserved
always for times when the raw emotion to be gotten across is such that less
charged language is inadequate. Come now - do you merely say, "Oh, dear," when
you drop a 150-pound rolltop desk on your foot?  

One must always write with the intended audience in mind. On this forum, the
use of such language is neither proscribed by law, by regulation, nor by
social custom. I am far from the first to have made such a strong statement,
and I seriously doubt that I will be the last. This is one of the significant
differences between Usenet and the ham bands: there, the use of such language
is against both the governing regulations of the amateur radio service and the
social customs that that service has evolved over the years.

My choice of words that has you and one email correspondent complaining was
done carefully, with a full appreciation of the effects intended. I challenge
you to come up with an expression that both conveys the full impact of my
disgust with the tactics that Mr. Bly propounds and yet satisfies your
prudery.
-- 
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: 21 Jan 1993 17:52:16 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 <1993Jan21.155013.10057@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:
|> In article <1jl9egINNk7t@tamsun.tamu.edu> willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti) writes:
|> 
|> >No, you might be ordered to pay damages and/or court/laywer fees!
|> Only if you were wrong.  As to damages, I fail to see what financial
|> damages would apply given that amateur radio is a non monetary
|> service.  

Winning a lawsuit and being right have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with each
other!!!!  As to your failure, it is obvious that you have never been involved
with a lawsuit...  Damages in the form of monetary "recompense" may be awarded
in any situation.  It depends on the shyster you hire.  After all, his cut
is dependant on: a) if he wins (retainer notwithstanding), and b) how much
he can squeeze out of the other side.

|> One way in which this issue of lawsuts could be eliminated would be for
|> the FCC to immunize frequency coordinators from such suits.  That could
|> simply be done by adding language in part 97 which states: repeater
|> frequency coordinators are not to be liable for their actions
|> involving assignemnt of repeaters, etc.  That approach is becoming
|> very common with volunteer coaches (eg. little league, soccor,
|> etc.)  as more and more states pass such legislation to protect
|> the thousands of unpaid volunteers in sports progarms from
|> being individually sued by some parent.

All it takes is a smarter lawyer to find a way around it.  After all, I could
claim "mental abuse due to the harassment of jammers"....  Worse reasoning
has made more money than I ever will have...

|> Another point, while it isn't always the case, the courts and judges
|> usually are fairly sympathetic to people who are being sued over
|> something they do on a volunteer basis.  

Yeah, right....
Ask the Lion's Eye Bank......

-- 
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 ***
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Language on the net (was Re: Closed repeaters)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:02:16 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1041@arrl.org> jbloom@arrl.org (Jon Bloom) writes:
>But few of the subjects discussed in this forum include depth of
>feeling as a relevant issue.  In short, my views on the subject of
>open vs closed repeaters (just to pick an example :-) aren't in the
>least influenced by whether the subject gets you--or Jay--hopping
>mad.  Rather, I'm swayed by cogent reasoning well articulated.

In this case, I felt that it was necessary to express my disapproval of
someone's advocacy of jamming as a legitimate means of social change in the
strongest possible terms. I believe that there is no room in ham radio - or,
indeed, any civilized society - for such terrorism. Mr. Bly's advocacy is no
different from Islamic Jihad's advocacy of blowing up school buses as a means
of achieving its desired results - whether or not the results are desirable,
the means are simply unacceptable.

How would you have expressed the same sentiment as the one I expressed,
clearly and succinctly?

>Not really.  Masters of the language can say the same thing in
>different ways, including eschewing profanity when necessary.  That's
>what makes them masters.  But in any case, masters of the language
>are few on this forum.  Use of profanity does serve a purpose, though.
>It flags the reader that the discussion is motivated not by clear-headed
>thinking but by blind emotion.  This lets the thinking reader quickly
>react by skipping to the next article.

Language is a tool; just as there is room in the toolbox for a jeweler's
screwdriver, so is there room for a 16-pound sledge. Both are necessary at
different times.

I do not claim to be a master of language, although that is for me a desirable
goal. I do claim to be able to use it reasonably well. My decision to use the
language I did was conscious, and clearly arrived at. That you choose not to
believe that does not change it.

>When used improperly in
>place of reason, profanity merely indicates that the speaker's hormone
>level exceeds his IQ.

This is the fatal flaw in your argument: it is not always used in place of
reason. There are times where there is simply no suitable alternative.
-- 
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: dana@lando.la.locus.com (Dana H. Myers)
Subject: Re: Pres. Clinton speech via Packet?
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 15:01:24 GMT

In article <C18FCF.1Ep@zero.com> 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 :-). 
>
>	What are the latest policies on political type information if it
>	remains distrubuted in the usa? I know there is a limitation of
>	political qsuos with stations ``outside'' of the usa.
>
>	Just Curious, anyone else curious?
>
>	73 Steve


I wasn't aware of any legal limitations of the discussion of "political"
information by US radio amateurs.  There certainly isn't anything in
Part 97, especially in 97.113.


-- 
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ 		| Views expressed here are	*
 * (310) 337-5136 		| mine and do not necessarily	*
 * dana@locus.com  DoD #466 	| reflect those of my employer	*
 * "Dammit Bones, spare me the lecture and give me the shot!"   *
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: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:02:15 GMT

In article <8510@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>
>...but if I'm in the middle of a conversation with folks in Austin, Dallas,
>Midland, and Corpus Christi, and someone comes on locally who, far from
>supporting my repeater, is an active opponent of it, what would you have me
>do? I choose not to let him run me off of my system, interfering with my
>conversation.
>
>(This is not a hypothetical. It has happened here. Repeatedly.)

Given that Jay will never win the Miss Congeniality award, why am I
not surprised? Around here when someone joins the conversation we
say, "welcome ya'll" and include the person in our conversation. If
your communication is so private that it mustn't be inclusive, then
I suggest you avail yourself of the services of a commercial common
carrier.

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: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Language on the net (was Re: Closed repeaters)
Date: 27 Jan 93 12:51:11 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

In article <8557@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> 
|> Herein lies the fundamental disagreement: I believe that this forum has
|> different standards of propriety from the ones you're used to. By the
|> standards I use, and which I believe are in common use on the net, the
|> occasional profanity is not only tolerated but appropriate. I only use it when
|> I feel it necessary to convey extreme emotion; in the absence of other clues,
|> such as voice inflections, this is sometimes necessary.

Tell me something Jay, if you were invited to speak before a group fo people
at your local high school on amateur radio, would you punctuate your talk with
profanity the way you think it should be here??

USENET/INTERNET is changing just like Ham Radio.  There are a lot of schools
below the University level receiving this group now.  Of course, this has
always been "mixed company".  

I don't think I would be classed as a prude, but then, I also don't think of
USENET as being the same as a Marine barracks either.

bill   KB3YV

-- 

   Bill Gunshannon     | "There are no evil thoughts, Mr. Reardon" Francisco
   bill@cs.uofs.edu    |  said softly, "except one; the refusal to think."
                       |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>
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 16:16:14 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

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.

Why am I not surprised?

>What you say is not
>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.

You're obviously forgetting such things as defamation of character, loss of
reputation, mental anguish and suffering, and so forth - all the kinds of
things that lawyers love to load up suits with. That your lawyer was honest
enough to exclude this kind of thing doesn't mean that others do so as well.

>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.

...unless the action is based, for example, on an allegation of breach of due
process in denying the coordination, in which case the court may well wish to
teach the rascals a lesson. In particular, a coordinator who chooses to use
some subjective basis for issuing coordinations such as preferring open over
closed repeaters may well find that used as a basis for breach of due process.

>If the coordinator explains to the jury that the real
>conflict is between a bunch of elitists operating a closed repeater and
>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.

Why not? They're allowed by the rules, Gary Coffman's semantic quibbles aside.
It's not likely that a jury would be so unswervably dedicated to the utopia of
open repeaters everywhere that they would do so, especially when it's
explained to them that the other side simply wishes to use someone else's
equipment without having to support it.
-- 
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: willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Date: 28 Jan 1993 02:21:12 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change

In article <1993Jan27.171046.29725@netcon.smc.edu> agood@netcon.smc.edu (Aaron Good) writes:
[a lot of stuff about there being a lot of closed repeaters in his area
 that want, in his NSHO, too much $$ for membership]

1. I applaud the attempt to focus back where the problems are; obviously
Atlanta and Texas have things well in hand 8-); why don't the SoCal gang
argue among themselves.

2.  Are there no open repeaters in your area? I'd be surprised, despite
the apparent number of closed repeaters.  If there are open repeaters,
why do you *need* more?  What's the purpose of putting up another in the
same band besides vanity?

3.  If there really are money making repeater 'clubs', how much effort have
you put into changing it through your local organizations?

Cheers,
 Willis n5szf
not (yet?) an Armadillo, but willing to contribute.
From: paulf@abercrombie.Stanford.EDU (Paul Flaherty)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:33:16 GMT
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>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.

This is probably the most valid argument for closed repeaters.  It simply is
not fair to expect access to someone else's station, period.  Other factors
may enter into the decision, but in the end, the only fair procedure is to
let the trustee make the open/closed judgement.

This issue is only relevant when all of the spectrum in a particular band is
in use, a phenomenon peculiar to a few urban centers.   In most of those
centers, sanctions are not permanent; the continuance of a sanction is a
value judgement of the coordinating body.  So, if open systems have inherently
higher value, then obtaining a sanction over that of a closed (and little used)
system is trivial.

-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | "My boy, we are pilgrims in an unholy land."
->paulf@Stanford.EDU   |                                -- Dr. Henry Jones Sr.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Date: 23 Jan 1993 14:01:39 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan21.153217.1@ttd.teradyne.com> rice@ttd.teradyne.com writes:
>   This isn't a flame --- but how do you figure this number ? The way I count
>it, each site uses at least 8 freqs and I don't expect that they could be
>re-used except at (at least) alternate sites.

Ah, but only the repeater input and output need to be in the repeater band
from 440 to 450, which is the basis for this whole drawn-out discussion.
The rest of the frequencies you mention can be elsewhere.
-- 
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: phillips@pennsy.med.jhu.EDU (Mark D. Phillips)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Net Control Signing for others on Net
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:02:36 GMT
Organization: ucsd usenet gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

A local ham has been telling me that when I participate in a Net, I do
not need to identify at the end because "Net Control signs for all
check-ins and participants at the conclusion of the net."

I have been suspicious of this, as I understand the regs to say that
_I_ am the one responsible for identifying my transmissions.  Further,
it seems to me there would be problems if the Net is conducted through
a multi-band linked repeater.  For example, say I am working the Net on
2 meters and Net Control is working on 440 MHz.  If Net Control signs
for me, then my transmissions are IDed on 440 and on all the repeater
outputs, but NOT on the 2 meter input frequency.  So even if I could
let Net Control ID for me, there would be times when I am left with MY
transmissions being unidentified.

Also, if Net Control slips up and forgets to ID for me, who gets slapped
with the violation, me or Net Control?

--> If this is within the rules, I would like to see a reference to the
specific section of the regulations that allows this. <--

I don't care if this would make Nets more difficult to manage (although I
can't see how a callsign here or there would be that much of a problem),
and I am NOT talking about Nets that are conducted during an emergency (I
already know that in an emergency, health and welfare take precedence over
the rules), I just want to know what the rules say.

Mark D. Phillips, Ph.D. -- WO3M
Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
600 N. Wolfe Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21205
410/955-9098

phillips@pennsy.med.jhu.edu
wo3m@wb3ffv.md.usa.noam
wo3m@n0ary.#nocal.ca.usa.noam
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: gw214790@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Galen Watts)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:49:10 GMT
Organization: Colorado Concert Sound
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change

In article <8556@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <Jan25.214455.59042@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> gw214790@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Galen Watts) writes:
>>Close whatever repeater you want.  If I work simplex on the output, what are
>>ya gonna do about it.
>
>If I can't hear you, I'm going to use the repeater anyway. Do you often engage
>in jamming?
>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.

No.  I never jam, unless other musicians are present.
Galen Watts, KF0YJ and Bassist.