HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 18:39:55 GMT

In article <8531@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.180215.28415@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Given that Jay will never win the Miss Congeniality award, why am I
>>not surprised?
>
>Only to you... I simply have little patience for inane positions that are
>tenaciously defended even in the face of arguments from the real world -
>exactly the position I'm arguing against: the world isn't as nice a place as
>you and your comrades would make it out to be.
>
>>Around here when someone joins the conversation we
>>say, "welcome ya'll" and include the person in our conversation.
>
>...as is the case around here, especially if it's someone new. (We always need
>fresh blood, and have little trouble getting it.) If someone wishes to become
>a regular user, though, and isn't a complete twit, then he is asked to help
>support the system if he decides that we're a good bunch of guys that he'd
>like to associate with. It's only a tiny minority that turns to antisocial
>activities like jamming. The ones that drift away generally understand what's
>going on.

I guess the rest of us just aren't in the communications for hire business.

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: kurt@cs.tamu.edu (Kurt Freiberger)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Date: 21 Jan 1993 16:07:38 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 <1993Jan21.100601.6496@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> 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?

Would that someone did, thereby limiting the noise factor significantly.....

Now, if a small group used it, would that be considered a closed nuke, or
an open nuke???  After all, everybody has the right to kick off a nuke, if
they can reach the button.....

Gary, did you ever consider that you tend to put things in terms of 
destruction?  I think it's time you considered another career, or a long
vacation.  Your job is getting to you...
-- 
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: chand@netcom.com (Charlie Hand)
Subject: Re: How to improve my CW speed (was: Re: Further evidence that...)
Summary: Quit writing
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:34:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.140144.14401@spider.co.uk> jmorris@spider.co.uk (John Morris) writes:
>
>So, apart from "practice, practice, practice", what's the trick? Can
>any of the really hot CW operators give me any hints about getting over
>the 20wpm barrier?
>
Of course, it *is* practice, practice, practice. But what I found got
me over that 20wpm barrier was to stop writing everything down. It's
sort of a leap of faith not to write it down, you feel like you're
going to miss something. But lo and behold, you'll find yourself
hearing words in your head, almost effortlessly. If you can copy
20wpm, you have already learned to hear whole words, you just don't
know it yet. (I remember it was a real blast at first, being able
to walk around the room and listen to cw like I was listening to
speech.) After that barrier, the average human limit seems to
be around 40wpm or so. Have fun.

(Of course, you'll want to take notes, just as when you listen to
someone speak).

-charlie hand AA7YK
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: 26 Jan 1993 19:20:04 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1047@arrl.org> jbloom@arrl.org (Jon Bloom) writes:
>I want to bring this discussion to a close, since it's pretty clear
>that there is no meeting of the minds likely, but...

Probably correct, since I view the net as being a different kind of forum from
the ham bands, and therefore having different standards of acceptable style; I
would not say some of the things on the air that I feel comfortable in writing
here.

>>How would you have expressed the same sentiment as the one I expressed,
>>clearly and succinctly?
>How about:
>"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."

That's succinct?

I've been told on more than one occasion that I tend to be verbose and flowery
in my writing. I tend to spend a fair amount of time going back and editing to
cut down on that and yet get my point across. I have intentionally not done so
in this thread.

>To me, that's a lot more compelling than your original statement.

Well, I'm glad to hear that; still, you are in the minority on the net, which
values clarity of expression over being nice and polite. This is neither 7290
nor the pages of QST.

>Untrue, and to quote an unimpeachable source (:-), "that you choose not
>to believe that does not change it."  The inability--or unwillingness--to
>exercise the judgement required to know when and when not to use a given
>style of language--including profanity--is the root problem.

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.
-- 
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: flloyd@l1-a.West.Sun.COM (Fred Lloyd [Phoenix SE])
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Abandonment of CW
Date: 25 Jan 1993 18:19:59 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Phoenix, AZ
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-a.west.sun.com

In article <1993Jan25.154312.145481@locus.com>
dana@lando.la.locus.com (Dana H. Myers) writes:
>
>The US Amateur Radio Service was chartered to do a number of things.  Among
>the charter is the development of a trained pool of radio operators and
>advancement of the state of the radio art. 
 [ more  deleted ]

>  My point is, the FCC did not charter amateur radio to be a museum of
>ancient radio arts.  The FCC chartered amateur radio to develop operators
>trained in the current technologies.  The FCC chartered amateur radio to
>develop *new* technologies ("to advance the state of the radio art").
 [ more deleted ]

>  CW is a fun mode, one which I often enjoy.  However, arguing the preservation
>of CW just because we've always used it is pointless and contrary to the
>charter of our service.  If we do not achieve the goals of our service, the
>FCC *will* eventually re-direct amateur radio.  I would suggest it is time
>for us (the amateurs) to pro-actively petition the FCC to de-emphasize the
>archaic facets of radio and emphasize the modern facets.
 [ more deleted ]

>  For the record, I recently achieved my Extra class license.  I have nothing
>to gain from the abolition of 13 and 20 WPM requirements.

Me too.

Although I usually don't get into the CW flamefests, I'll stand up and
take a stand this time in support of Dana's position.  Since the Coast
Guard has abandoned it thereby (ahem..) telegraphing the government's
intentions :-), it now seems clear that the CW requirements are at most,
anachronistic.  The "International Treaty" which requires CW for ham
radio begins to sound like a laughable paper tiger.  Let me understand
this:  Hams have to know CW, but the Government does not.... hmmmm.....

And above all, CW as a 'lid filter' never worked anyway.  CW should be
a permitted mode as opposed to a required one.


-fred


P.S.

It's best now to start thinking in terms of the good times that you
_had_ with CW rather than spend the rest of your waking days grieving
over the loss of this beloved friend :-)

CW: It's over - deal with it.



-- 
[ Fred Lloyd, AA7BQ                             Fred.Lloyd@West.Sun.COM ]
[ Sun Microsystems,           Southwest Area Solaris Transition Manager ]
[ Phoenix, AZ                                            (602) 275-4242 ]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: bwilkins@iat.holonet.net (Bob Wilkins n6fri)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Organization: the cAVe group
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 02:50:04 GMT

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
: 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.
: -- 
Whats the difference whether the frequencies are in the repeater sub band
or the auxiluary sub band ....Two hams talking across town are consuming
over 128 khz of amateur spectrum ;> 

-- 
Bob Wilkins    n6fri          voice 440.250+ 100pl san francisco bay area
bwilkins@holonet.net          packet n6fri @ w6pw.#nocal.ca.usa.na
 
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: dana@lando.la.locus.com (Dana H. Myers)
Subject: Abandonment of CW
Summary: If the government abandons CW, we should drop it as a requirement
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 15:43:12 GMT


  The US Amateur Radio Service was chartered to do a number of things.  Among
the charter is the development of a trained pool of radio operators and
advancement of the state of the radio art.

  At one time, the government used CW in many radio operations, and the
notion of a "trained radio operator" therefore included training in CW.
So, it made sense to require knowledge of CW to gain an amateur license.

  However, today, little, if any, of the government radio communications
operations, use CW.  It seems that government traffic is now either voice
or automated digital (such as FEC packet).

  My point is, the FCC did not charter amateur radio to be a museum of
ancient radio arts.  The FCC chartered amateur radio to develop operators
trained in the current technologies.  The FCC chartered amateur radio to
develop *new* technologies ("to advance the state of the radio art").

  CW is a fun mode, one which I often enjoy.  However, arguing the preservation
of CW just because we've always used it is pointless and contrary to the
charter of our service.  If we do not achieve the goals of our service, the
FCC *will* eventually re-direct amateur radio.  I would suggest it is time
for us (the amateurs) to pro-actively petition the FCC to de-emphasize the
archaic facets of radio and emphasize the modern facets.

  For the record, I recently achieved my Extra class license.  I have nothing
to gain from the abolition of 13 and 20 WPM requirements.

-- 
 * 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	*
 * This Extra supports the abolition of the 13 and 20 WPM tests *
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 21:30:29 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change

kurt@cs.tamu.edu (Kurt Freiberger) writes:

>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.

I've been on the sending end of a lawsuit or two.  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.  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.
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
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.

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

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: jbloom@arrl.org (Jon Bloom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Language on the net (was Re: Closed repeaters)
Date: 26 Jan 93 10:28:40 EST
Organization: American Radio Relay League

I want to bring this discussion to a close, since it's pretty clear
that there is no meeting of the minds likely, but...

In rec.radio.amateur.policy, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>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?

How about:
"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."

To me, that's a lot more compelling than your original statement.

[deleted]

>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.

Untrue, and to quote an unimpeachable source (:-), "that you choose not
to believe that does not change it."  The inability--or unwillingness--to
exercise the judgement required to know when and when not to use a given
style of language--including profanity--is the root problem.
-------
Jon Bloom, KE3Z              |  jbloom@arrl.org
American Radio Relay League  |     Justice is being allowed to do whatever
225 Main St.                 |     I like.  Injustice is whatever prevents
Newington, CT 06111          |     my doing so. -- Samuel Johnson
From: gw214790@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Galen Watts)
Subject: Re: Language on the net (was Re: Closed repeaters)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:50:06 GMT
Organization: Only when needed

In article <8565@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <11545@prijat.cs.uofs.edu> bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>>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.
>
>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.
>Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can

Try "60 days to a more effective vocabulary".  There are words that do fit
that are not offensive to anyone.

Some of us aren't prudes and don't swear when we injure ourselves.
Galen Watts, KF0YJ
From: jbloom@arrl.org (Jon Bloom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Date: 24 Jan 93 13:49:15 EST
Organization: American Radio Relay League

In rec.radio.amateur.policy, brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes:
>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?  
>	[...]
>>I often use such language myself, but not where the possibility of someone
>>below the age of 12 can hear me.
>
>I too have used strong language in this forum.  Occasionally, someone
>complains.  However, I prefer to remain an optimist, and write in the
>expectation that people reading here will be of sufficient physical,
>mental, or emotional age that they will be able to understand that
>there are times when strong language is necessary to adequately express
>depth of feeling.

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.

>There are strong words for expressing strong emotions.  These are
>honorable words, with a venerable history.  When used by a master of
>the language, they express ideas in a way that no other words or
>phrasing can even approximate.

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.

>Regrettably, there are a number of prudes extant whose attention to
>form rather than content will nearly always lead them to miss this
>point.  These same people are often among those who believe themselves
>to be so holy that their own shit don't stink.

Prudery and an inflated ego are neither mutually exclusive nor are
they inseparable.  While it's true that there are prudes reading this
forum, there are also a number of unreconstructed adolescents who think
that use of profanity is a sign that the speaker has strength, be it
physical, moral or mental.  They are wrong.  When used improperly in
place of reason, profanity merely indicates that the speaker's hormone
level exceeds his IQ.
-------
Jon Bloom, KE3Z              |  jbloom@arrl.org
American Radio Relay League  |     Justice is being allowed to do whatever
225 Main St.                 |     I like.  Injustice is whatever prevents
Newington, CT 06111          |     my doing so. -- Samuel Johnson
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Subject: Re: How to improve my CW speed (was: Re: Further evidence that...)
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 21:34:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.140144.14401@spider.co.uk>, jmorris@spider.co.uk (John Morris) writes:

> So, apart from "practice, practice, practice", what's the trick? Can
> any of the really hot CW operators give me any hints about getting over
> the 20wpm barrier?
> 

Actually, "practice" is the trick. What I did find, however, was that short
sessions worked better than long. At least for me. I ran a 10 min tape 2 or 3
times a day, rather then sitting down for an hour or more at a time. It took
about 8 weeks to get from 13wpm to a 'reliable' 20 (which means that I was
able to copy 25 under 'ideal' conditions at home) under  'test stress'.


--------

   John Rice -  K9IJ         |  "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was    
   rice@ttd.teradyne.com     |   MY opinion only, no one else's...Especially  
   (708)-940-9000 - (work)   |   Not my Employer's.... Licensed since 1959
   (708)-438-5065 - (bbs )   |   Ex: K8YZR, KH6GHC, WB9CSP, W9MMB, WA1TXV


Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy