Your earlier messages struck me as "my favorite controller doesn't support site prefixing so site prefixing must be wrong/useless/stupid". This message just confirms it.
What Ed was trying to describe to you is not some whacked out idea he came up with off the top of his head but rather a fairly standard way things have been done for literally decades. I for one think this subject has been beaten to death and then some. 73's Skip WB6YMH --- In [email protected], "Nate Duehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > <---By the way Skip, I meant to ask if you're inferring something > > about those of us whom are 1st person familiar with SoCal repeater & > > remote base design? > > What, massive multi-State linking that ties up huge swaths of the spectrum > for a single two-person QSO, deliberately ignoring the "use only the > power/spectrum you need to make the contact" rules? > > Oh, yeah, and let's not forget to have it go out at least three remote > bases into VHF SSB into a non-repeater band too, because someone decided > they want to listen there, while we're at it? > > And you guys wonder why you've been out of repeater pairs for over a > decade? (GRIN!) > > Okay okay... we have three linked VHF repeaters between three cities... > we're just behind the times, I guess... plus it means I can't throw > stones. Just had to say it, though... > > :-) :-) ;-) > > It's like a cold war between big linked systems to see just how much each > can waste spectrum. > > (HUGE GRIN... DUCKING...) > > Even funnier... then you have people that monitor the system and ask > anyone carrying on a long QSO to "free up" the system for everyone else! > Heh heh. > > Okay so ... who's in... coast-to-coast, via RF... the Route 66 repeater > system! > > (Note I carefully picked a route too far south to participate in. LOL!) > > -- > Nate Duehr, WY0X >
