+1 excellent idea ________________________________ > To: [email protected] > From: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 16:48:13 -0400 > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ham installation quality/non-quality > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nate - > > > > May I suggest that you do a write-up with photos that could be posted on the > > RB site? Maybe "the right way" and "the wrong way" would be helpful for guys > > making installs. And explain why it's done this way, not that way. > > > > Chuck > > WB2EDV > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Nate Duehr"> > > To:> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 4:28 PM > > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Ham installation quality/non-quality > > > >> > >> On Tue, 05 May 2009 12:32:57 -0000, "Louis"> said: > >>> Interesting, this looks like one of those Hams/bash-hams discussions > >>> that is not suppose to take place on this forum! > >> > >> Sometimes you just have to rant when you see something this bad. I > >> didn't name names, and I didn't attack any individual. > >> > >>> Yes, I will agree their are those that cause havoc with a tower site > >>> owner, or other lessors, but the number is minor compared to those > >>> Amateur Radio installs that are done properly and well maintained. > >> > >> I hope so. From the "proud papa photos" around the Internet, I'd say > >> it's closer to 50/50, but luckily that ratio gets better at commercial > >> sites, where my club's gear often lives. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
_________________________________________________________________ Want to stay on top of your life online? Find out how with Windows Live! http://windowslive.ninemsn.com.au/
