I think we should create a 'woodchuck' rule that puts a limit on the number of e-mails related to a topic like the famous woodchuck discussion we had on the reflector. NIZAR K0NM
> On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:36 AM, K5HM via BVARC <[email protected]> wrote: > > Right on > > 73, > Ron, K5HM > [email protected] > www.qrz.com/db/k5hm > <image001.jpg><image002.jpg> > Excelsior! > > From: BVARC [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of JP Pritchard via > BVARC > Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 5:59 PM > To: 'BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB' <[email protected]> > Cc: JP Pritchard <[email protected]>; 'Jonathan Guthrie' <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [BVARC] Trash on our Amateur Radio reflector > > 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 <[email protected]> > To: BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB <[email protected]> > Cc: Rick Hiller -- W5RH <[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 <[email protected]> wrote: > I vote for that! ( and the code requirement :-) > > On Apr 2, 2017 8:56 AM, "K5HM" <[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 > [email protected] > www.qrz.com/db/k5hm > > Excelsior! > > From: BVARC [mailto:[email protected] g] On Behalf Of Pat Cameron via > BVARC > Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 7:16 AM > To: BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB <[email protected]> > Cc: Pat Cameron <[email protected]>; Michael Monsour <[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 <[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 <[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 <[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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just haveing fun michael. Don't take it so seriously. > > > > Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy® Note 4. > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Michael Monsour via BVARC <[email protected]> > Date: 4/1/17 9:42 PM (GMT-06:00) > To: BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB <[email protected]> > Cc: Michael Monsour <[email protected]>, JP Pritchard <[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 <[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 <[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 > > [email protected] > > http://mail.bvarc.org/mailma n/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org > > Message delivered to [email protected] > > > ______________________________ _________________ > BVARC mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/ listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org > Message delivered to [email protected] > > ______________________________ _________________ > BVARC mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/ listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org > Message delivered to [email protected] > > > ______________________________ _________________ > BVARC mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/ listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org > Message delivered to [email protected] > > ______________________________ _________________ > BVARC mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/ listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org > Message delivered to [email protected] > > ______________________________ _________________ > BVARC mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/ listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org > Message delivered to [email protected] > > > ______________________________ _________________ > BVARC mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/ listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org > Message delivered to [email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ > BVARC mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org > Message delivered to [email protected] > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > BVARC mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org > Message delivered to [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]
_______________________________________________ BVARC mailing list [email protected] http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org Message delivered to [email protected]
