This isn't about Shorty or Bob. It is related to building a repeater because once the repeater is built the ham has to deal with Bob and soon enough Shorty. I noticed that you gave Shorty a thumbs up, so I guess that its ok to express a favorable opinion of him but not a negative. http://scaroa.org has invited anyone to discuss this issue.
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Mullarkey" <k7...@...> wrote: > > Guys, > > > > I really don't care to hear about your issues with the coordinating body and > who likes or dis likes Shorty and his system, if you really know him he is a > very generous person. Let's be done with this. I would hope that Skip and > others would agree this thread is not about building repeaters or trying to > figure out how to build one. > > > > No dis-respect, but you guys should keep the coordinating board business to > internal email. It does not look good when everyone all over the world sees > how the coordinating body acts like. > > > > > > Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ > > _____ > > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Lemmon > Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 6:12 PM > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA & 70 cm band coordination > > > > > > > > > Before this gets out of hand, allow me to state that my post mentioning > TASMA in conflict with SCRRBA was in error, and I posted a retraction. The > potential conflict is between SCRRBA and NARCC; TASMA is not a party to the > low in/high out versus high in/low out issue on 70cm band plans. At least, > not yet. > > 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> > yahoogroups.com > [mailto:Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> > yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of raffertysec > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:44 PM > To: Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> > yahoogroups.com > Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA & 70 cm band coordination > > Respectfully and only with respect -- I think it suggests a lot about > character when I read your reply Mr. Dengler. > > TASMA does not *yet* have a band plan but you are fully aware of a motion > placed before the board recommending the continued use of the SCRRBA band > plan as it exists. Therefore, TASMA has a 70cm band plan. > > http://forums. > <http://forums.scaroa.org/showthread.php?p=16&posted=1#post16> > scaroa.org/showthread.php?p=16&posted=1#post16 > <http://forums. > <http://forums.scaroa.org/showthread.php?p=16&posted=1#post16> > scaroa.org/showthread.php?p=16&posted=1#post16> > > This is a partial list of the WIN System that features repeaters with > overlapping coverage, but granted coordination. Pair after pair after pair > on two bands linked together providing duplicate content and under the > direct control of one man. K6JSI and even a sight impaired person could not > miss the extreme conflict of interest. > > I believe that most of us know that on 440 1) most repeaters are limited > range and private and this practice absolutely does not serve amateur radio > operators, and 2) one has to pay to play. Has anyone actually listened to > the "simplex" frequencies on 2/440 lately where linking is already being > done in violation of the existing band plans? > > http://www.thedeanf <http://www.thedeanfamily.com/winreptr.htm> > amily.com/winreptr.htm > <http://www.thedeanf <http://www.thedeanfamily.com/winreptr.htm> > amily.com/winreptr.htm> > > The next conference call on Skype is scheduled for May 12th as I recall. > Who's invited? Yet another closed door meeting? One entity conrolling all > spectrum will only add to the corruption most of us know takes place but say > nothing about because we're already coordinated and don't want to find > ourselves penalized for having an opinion. > > It isn't my intent to present an ad homenum attack against you or to create > controversy in this group -- your record and that of TASMA speaks for itself > and controversy has long, long, long existed. I am shocked that it has taken > this long for someone to light the fuse. I hope to read a respectful reply > from you and strongly recommend that we cut the crap. It serves no one and > certainly does not serve the amateur radio operators for whom the spectrum > is intended. It is not intended for those that earn a living selling > memberships to linked system that place 5 repeaters on one hilltop all > linked together. > > Respectfully, how is this going to work? Shorty is going to have his friends > show up again, he'll pay their dues again, kick more people off of the board > and gain control; he'll be the chairman that says yes or no to primary and > link frequencies for others because they conflict with his business of > selling memberships? Mr. Dengler, please. A straight answer. Perhaps this > local issue should be taken elsewhere because it isn't fair to this group. > Much can be accomplished to clear the air, but it begins by taking off your > tap dancing shoes. > > --- In Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> > yahoogroups.com > <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> , no6b@ wrote: > > > > At 5/4/2009 17:46, you wrote: > > >This could get real interesting, real fast, since the big difference > between > > >SCRRBA and TASMA band plans is whether the 70cm repeater inputs should be > > >above or below the outputs. They are opposite polarities! > > > > > >73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY > > > > TASMA has a 70 cm bandplan? That's news to me! > > > > Bob NO6B > > Chairman, TASMA > > >
