From: mgb@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Morality vs. THE LAW
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:36:00 GMT
Organization: ucsd usenet gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

I have been reading the thread on open versus closed repeaters and while
there are some interesting points being made, a lot of it is just the same
old battle of how you want to interpret FCC regulations to your own personal
advantage.  No winner of that debate is ever possible, and the only reason
to continue that line of conversation is for the enjoyment of an argument
unto itself,  which is fine... just let's call it for what it is.

On the subject of repeaters... (open versus closed), it seems like a very
simple matter to me.

Repeaters cost money.  Regardless of where they are, what they do, packet,
voice, VHF/linked/micro-processor controlled... whatever.. they cost money.

It seems to me that a decent sort of human being would at least offer to help
defray expenses if he found the features (or whatever else) of a "system"
enjoyable for him or her to use.

Some people, being really cheap and selfish, would like to have everything
they can get for as little money as possible.  Thus they try to think of
any and every possible reason as to why anything and everything should be
theirs to use, free of ANY POSSIBLE legal or moral argument otherwise.

After a certain period of time, responsible people get tired of this
attitude but find their hands tied on what to do about it.  You can't
legislate morality, so some of them go the "closed repeater" route.
I am not talking about PL being used for the reduction of repeater to
repeater interference, I am simply talking about closing a repeater
in an attempt at keeping out the people that want everything for
nothing.

And from there.. things just tend to go downhill as has been demonstrated
in this thread but I sure can understand their feelings.

The matter of transmitting on repeater inputs, link inputs, you name it,
and the argument that it is "legal" as long as the frequency is not already
in use is just amazing.  The thought that one ham... just ONE HAM, has the
legal right to bypass all the efforts, planning, expense of whole GROUPS of
clubs, coordination groups, you name it... is just mind boggling.  The
idea that anyone would ESPOUSE such an action, insinuating that it is just
an expression of a hams "rights" or is "legal", is a sick puppy.

Put very simply... it appears that there is a certain element among us
that says: "It's A-OK to be a total jerk, with no morality, no responsibility
to the whole...as long as it can be in some way argued to be LEGAL".  You
talk about what's wrong with amateur radio?  If you can't see this kind of
logic as being a strong indicator... then you must be one of them!  When we
have people that argue that being an ASS is A-OK as long as it is LEGAL,
you have summed up the hobbies problem in a nutshell!

Sure, there probably are elitist groups that use a closed repeater simply
to exercise their extreme prejudices but even these probably grew from ones
that simply got tired of the "something for nothing" crowd.

So let's get back to basics.. let's call a spade a spade.. and not
confuse the issue with a lot of legal drivel.

1.  Anyone who runs packet, or a simplex conversation on a voice repeater
input ON PURPOSE is doing so because he wants to cause pain and
aggravation to some other person.  I don't give one HOOT what the law
says or implies.  *I* say that anyone that espouses such a thing or does
such a thing is a LID (I am biting my tongue for want of a BETTER word).

2.  Anyone that wants to use, is using, plans on using ANY system built
but someone else on a regular basis should offer to help PAY for it, or
contribute to keep it going.   Anyone that feels this is not necessary
is a FREELOADER and AGAIN is a *LID*.

3. When a ham is a LID he or she should be ostracized and held up for
public contempt and not defended under some possible loophole envisioned
by some sea lawyer who reads FCC regulations as a pastime.

4.  Anyone who DEFENDS the actions of a LID (legal or not).... IS A LID!


Yes..yes... yes... I am sure there are exceptions to the above.. and I
am SURE than someone will take great pleasure in pointing them out, but
I truly think that in the MAJORITY of cases, the previous paragraphs sum
it up very nicely.

There are GIVERS... and there are TAKERS... there are NICE PEOPLE and
there are ASSHOLES.   I personally would like to be remembered as a nice
person and a giver.  Others are so sick that they prefer the other
definitions.  However, don't try to convince me that being an "asshole"
and a "taker is your "legal right" thus it must be an OK thing.  I don't
BUY that, and neither does any other sane ham.  And let me distinguish
here between a HAM and a person LICENSED TO OPERATE ON AMATEUR FREQUENCIES!
There was a time when in most cases the two terms were synonymous, that is
obviously no longer the case in a percentage of people that appears to be
growing every day.


Mark Bitterlich
wa3jpy@wb4uou.nc.usa.noam
mgb@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil