I enjoy BVARC (the club and the reflector) for more than one reason. Like Mr. Rodriguez, I look to the club for Elmers, and I have found many who are willing to help. All I had to do was ask. On the other hand, I find the fellowship of the group to be very important in my life. I learned a very long time ago that I need social connections with like-minded individuals, and I have turned to BVARC to meet this need at this time in my life.
Every time a member posts something, whether it's focused on amateur radio or something else, I learn something about a friend and sometimes I learn something new about one topic or another. So no, I am not offended and my day isn't ruined if I encounter something off topic on the reflector. (And I am a person who receives more than a hundred emails a day, many of them off topic to anything and everything in my life.) So, for what little my opinion is worth, I think Mr Jonathan Guthrie has replied to this discussion in a most creative and appropriate way. I think he's suggesting that we should all use good judgement in what we post, while at the same time we have the freedom, when the signal to noise ratio is all wrong, to turn on the noise blanker and the noise DSP if you have one, and then either live with the noise that's left or shut off the receiver (delete and move on). JP Pritchard, KG3JPP From: BVARC [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Guthrie via BVARC Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2017 2:56 PM To: BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB <[email protected]> Cc: Jonathan Guthrie <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [BVARC] Trash on our Amateur Radio reflector Two things about the signal-to-noise ratio of an email list. First, conversations about the topicality of off-topic messages (by which I mean discussions like this very one that we're engaging in right at this moment) tend to generate vast quantities of frankly off-topic noise, especially when compared to the off-topic messages that are under discussion. Consider, for example, the number of "April Fools" messages to the number of messages talking about the "April Fools" messages. There have been at least twice as many in the meta discussion than were posted in the first place. These messages will also tend to be very contentious, which probably accounts for there being such a large number of them. Second, a low signal-to-noise ratio in an email list is nearly always due to a low amount of signal in the list rather than to an excess of noise. (The only exception I know of is on the SMOFs list, and that has to do with the characteristics of certain of the personalities on that list. I can explain more, if you want me to, but it probably works better in a private conversation.) So, the appropriate response to being unhappy with a low signal-to-noise ratio is to try to put more signal in the list rather than to put more noise on the list in an attempt to reduce the amount of noise on the list. On-topic messages tend to foster more on-topic discussion. One last point I'll make is that nobody concerned with a low signal-to-noise ratio finds comments like "you can always delete the messages you don't like" to be very helpful. If the noise is high enough, it is easiest to simply withdraw. On 04/02/2017 10:18 AM, John Chauvin via BVARC wrote: Au contraire. It is not that my, and hopefully anyone else's, whole day is consumed with the reflector. Rather it is that many of us have a busy schedule and have to sort through this BS to get to our only desire for the reflector - amateur radio. One exception, because of the nature of many amateur radio operators, an occasional "off topic" is required as a one-time question or similar, but not leading to a long e-mail trail. I would hope that those that respond to these occasional requests do so directly and not respond to the entire reflector. IMHO (to quote a internationally acclaimed orator and noble statesman). _____ From: Rick Hiller -- W5RH via BVARC <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> To: BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> Cc: Rick Hiller -- W5RH <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [BVARC] Trash on our Amateur Radio reflector Well now, let's see... No political comments -- then no discussion about HR555. No religious comments -- then no discussion about the propagation, sun spots, solar storms, because that is Mother Nature/God -- the ultimate OP, no matter what building you go into Friday, Saturday or Sunday. No humorous comments.....oh, no humor, sorry, I'll stop here then. C'mon folks, if your whole day is consumed by what comes across the BVARC reflector and you do not know what a delete key is, then you deserve to be miserable. Even Dr. Feinman had a sense of humor. 73 (sincerely) Rick -- W5RH ps...keep complaiing and I will start the wood chuck thread again....Oh..,,sorry, no humor allowed. My apologies. Rick Hiller The Radio Hotel -- W5RH On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Pat Cameron via BVARC < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote: I vote for that! ( and the code requirement :-) On Apr 2, 2017 8:56 AM, "K5HM" < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote: I do not care for political or religious comments but if we ban humor, well, that is a step too far. There is precious little ham humor in our hobby. We all seen to take ourselves too seriously. Next thing you know, we will be bannibg the expressions of humor like words like Ha Ha or Hee Hee Heee. Come on April 1st. OK? 73, Ron, K5HM <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <http://www.qrz.com/db/k5hm> www.qrz.com/db/k5hm Excelsior! From: BVARC [mailto: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] g] On Behalf Of Pat Cameron via BVARC Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 7:16 AM To: BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Cc: Pat Cameron < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>; Michael Monsour < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Subject: Re: [BVARC] Trash on our Amateur Radio reflector Can we take a vote? Best Regards, Pat Cameron (832)885-2899 On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 6:08 AM, K5IZO via BVARC < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote: Michael, I agree. Let's keep this reflector for ham radio so we don't have to receive this garbage. Political views, sinkholes and April Fools trash isn't welcome here. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 2, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Michael Monsour via BVARC < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote: If you are going to do April 1st stuff then have the FCC turn ham radio into CB. No more calls and free for all and anything goes On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Jeff Davis via BVARC < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote: I enjoyed it, I've been hit with so many today that it was getting old. Then this one and man I swallowed it hook line and oh you know. it wasn't till I went back to read it again and saw the date that I went, oh crap, I fell for one. Thanks, KF5HQE Jeff On Apr 1, 2017, at 10:12 PM, gmuller885 via BVARC < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote: Just haveing fun michael. Don't take it so seriously. Sent from my Sprint Samsung GalaxyR Note 4. -------- Original message -------- From: Michael Monsour via BVARC < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Date: 4/1/17 9:42 PM (GMT-06:00) To: BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Cc: Michael Monsour < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>, JP Pritchard < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Subject: Re: [BVARC] FCC action!! Enough with the April 1st junk On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 9:03 PM, JP Pritchard via BVARC < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote: I know this is crap since the federal government would never say in a press release that it had made a big mistake. Nice try Chris. You're an April fool. JP Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 1, 2017, at 8:45 PM, Chris Boone via BVARC < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote: > > FCC to reinstate Morse Code test > > Washington, D.C. - April 1, 2017 - > > Today, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) approved Report and Order 14-987af which reinstates the Morse Code test for General Class and Amateur Extra Class licensees. > > "It was a big mistake eliminating the Morse Code test," admits Dotty Dasher, the FCC's director of examinations. "We now realize that being able to send and receive Morse Code is an essential skill for radio amateurs. As they say, it really does get through when other modes can't." > > Not only will new applicants have to take the test, but General Class licensees who have never passed a code test will have one year to pass a 5-wpm code test. Similarly, Amateur Extra class licensees that never passed a code test will have one year to pass a 13-wpm test. Those amateurs that fail to pass the test will face revocation of their operating privileges. Materials for administering the examinations will be distributed to Volunteer Examiner Coordinators by the end of April, so that they can begin the testing on May 1, 2017. > > "This isn't going to be one of those silly multiple-choice type tests," noted Dasher. "We're going to be sending five-character random code groups, just like we did in the old days. And, applicants will have to prove that they can send, too, using a poorly adjusted straight key." > > Technician Class licensees will not be required to take a Morse Code test, nor will a test be required for new applicants. "We discussed it," said Dasher, "but decided that since most Techs can't even figure out how to program their HTs, requiring them to learn Morse Code seemed like cruel and unusual punishment." > > When asked what other actions we might see from the FCC, Dasher hinted that in the future applicants taking the written exam may be required to draw circuit diagrams, such as Colpitts oscillators and diode ring mixers, once again. "We're beginning to think that if an applicant passes an amateur radio license exam it should mean that he or she actually knows something," she said. > ______________________________ __ > Cumulus Media Disclaimer > This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. > ______________________________ _________________ > BVARC mailing list > <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] > <http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org> http://mail.bvarc.org/mailma n/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org > Message delivered to <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] ______________________________ _________________ BVARC mailing list <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org> http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/ listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org Message delivered to <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] ______________________________ _________________ BVARC mailing list <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org> http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/ listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org Message delivered to <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] ______________________________ _________________ BVARC mailing list <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org> http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/ listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org Message delivered to <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] ______________________________ _________________ BVARC mailing list <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org> http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/ listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org Message delivered to <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] ______________________________ _________________ BVARC mailing list <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org> http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/ listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org Message delivered to <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] ______________________________ _________________ BVARC mailing list <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org> http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/ listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org Message delivered to <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] _______________________________________________ BVARC mailing list <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org> http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org Message delivered to <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] _______________________________________________ BVARC mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org Message delivered to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> -- Jonathan Guthrie ARS KA8KPN
_______________________________________________ BVARC mailing list [email protected] http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org Message delivered to [email protected]
