From: kurt@cs.tamu.edu (Kurt Freiberger)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Date: 27 Jan 1993 20:28:33 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 <C1HA8w.GHx@hpuerca.atl.hp.com>, jab@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Alan Barrow) writes:
|> get a life, Kurt... This is a comment regarding the technical argument
|> that linking requires closed repeaters. I have seen multiple examples of
|> open linked systems that equal or surpass the Cactus system in
|> capability.

I, too, have seen multiple examples of open linked systems that equal/surpass
Cactus.  I have seen multiple examples of closed linked systems that equal/
surpass Cactus.  However, I do not insult their efforts by calling them
"lacking".  THAT is what I call "technical snobbery".  Each system has its 
own philosophy and technical merits.  I am not one to pass judgement on their
efforts to the world.  I may have my own views, but IT WORKS FOR THEM AND 
THEY ARE APPARENTLY HAPPY.
|> Using the "fragile technology" excuse for closed repeaters will never
|> wash. There are too many working examples.

The "fragile technology" point was jumped upon and given far too much
bandwidth.  

|> >|> You turn on your lid filter, and he goes away. See above postings.
|> >|> Closed repeaters draw these guys like magnets. This is not a problem
|> 
|> >So do discussions on closed/open repeaters, it would seem.
|> 
|> You cannot address the real issue, so now you call anyone with a
|> difference of opinion a Lid. No wonder closed repeaters have problems.

I fail to see the relevance.  I did not use the term lid.  I was making a
comment (that apparently missed some; not surprising) about the quality of
argument on said discussions.  Quote the whole reference, with appropriate
"credits", next time.  I do not call anyone with a difference of opinion
a lid.  Depending on the validity of the DOO, I may consider him a fool, 
however.
|> 
|> Sorry Kurt, you must not have read the original post. Jay "The ignorant
|> splut" Maynard implied (as has others) that closed repeaters are the
|> only ones doing work in other bands. If you had really read my post you
|> would see that I described these guys as not technically brilliant, but
|> just have lots of energy and enthusiasm. 

I did read the original post.  Again, please quote the whole reference, not
just what supports your point.  The list was extolling the "obviously higher
technological accomplishments" of that group, with attendant veiled implication
that others are not capable of these lofty achievements.  I responded with
errantly-aimed sarcasm, it would seem.

|> Which brings us to the obvious answer to the technical justification
|> for closed repeaters: If a bunch of bubba's with high school educations
|> in Ga can make a linked system with lots of features work well and
|> remain open, then why can't the closed repeater crowd?

I rather imgaine they could, but choose not to for whatever reasons they
deem worthy.  As the afore-mentioned bubbas did.

|> The technical argument is invalid. Choose to be closed if you wish, but
|> do not expect sympathy based on technical excuses!

Please get off the dead horse of "damage".  I expect little; therefore, I
am not disappointed.  Each side has its reasons.  They act accordingly, with
a modicum of righteousness.  The prosecution of such righteousness is the
thing.

 |>If you could/would read original posts as much as you refer to your
|> "Latin for Mindless Idiots" guide you would be much better off.
|> Is this required reading at Texas A&M? 

I cannot help if someone misses completely the points I make.  Such is the
fallibility of Man.  Besides, I am the judge of the degree of "better off", 
from my point of view.  YOU would be "better off" going somewhere else to
proselytize the brand of pap you espouse.  IMNSHO, of course.  

Now go away.  To drag out another ism you will probably not like (or 
appreciate): "Never teach a pig to sing; It wastes your time, and annoys
the pig."

Indeed.  B-}

-- 
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