It strikes me as very odd that you insist on keeping this on a Yahoo Group that is nationwide instead of allowing the locals to go to a neutral place.. You don't make a dime off of the advertising here, so what does it matter? I referenced SCAROA two by URL oprior to commenting to you. You even replied to one message.
http://scaroa.org. SCAROA has well over 100 repeater owner members that are able to speak with qanonimity until they are ready to speak in their real voice. Most send PM's back and forth but it is a start. This discussion does not need to be on a natiowide group or even a subset of that group. Why do you claim ownership of a topic that you want gone anyway? Take it to SCAROA. They have been working with the ARRL and the NFCC directly. I respectfully ask the moderator to close this thread. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH <m...@...> wrote: > > Threaded... > > Spencer R. Peterson wrote: > > You have misread and misunderstood his comments. He attempted to direct > > comments to a more appropriate forum. > > That's what I was doing - trying to move the discussion from the RB list > to the RB Coordination list. > > Yes, I understand that he was trying to move it to a local list, but if > it was a local issue it should have never been put on the RB list which > IS a national (actually international) list. Regardless, it was and it > should have been immediately moved to the RBC list where the scope is > the same but the list is dedicated to issues such as those. > > > This is a repeater builder forums while the web site that he sent you > to is a local association that deals with TASMA and SCRRBA. This is not > a national issue. Why should the rest of us have to read this stuff? It > doesn't concern us. You complain that the discussion is here but then > complain that he is trying to move it where it belongs? That doesn't > really add up. > > Where it belongs is the RBC list as opposed to the RB (non-coordination) > list if you're going to compare apples to apples. > > > You SHOULD have gone to the web site to see what it was about before asking > > him what it was about. > > A website that he only referenced ***AFTER*** I asked? How should I have > known what the URL was or even that there WAS a website? > > > > The address has been posted several times. > > Not that I saw. The only reference I saw before my comment was to an > acronym. > > > Or you can go to a Google group started by someone else for unknown > > reasons. Clearly southern California hams have had enough of the BS of > > TASMA that they are now forming groups to vocalize the issues. THAT should > > concern you. > > And that is where the national scope comes in. > > > > The point I read clearly is this: TASMA and specifically Bob Dengler are > > tap dancing. They have been asked to appear and justify their position. But > > for Mr. Dengler to state that he is unaware of a 70cm band plan when he has > > been a direct part of the absorbtion of SCRRBA and adopting by motion its > > current band plan speaks for itself. He has attended meetings and > > conference calls on this topic. I realize that he is helpful to this group, > > but that doesn't take away his responsibility to the perception that TASMA > > and SCRRBA need and intervention and are perceived as corrupt. Mr. Dengler > > chose not to answer in this forum but perhaps he'll take notice when he is > > served with one of several law suits that I am aware of. > > > > I don't have a dog in this fight and can, I believe, read objectively. The > > bottom line is that if you don't want the discussion here then don't > > complain when a suggestion is made that it be taken elsewhere and an > > address given. > > Complain when that happens? I'm the one that SUGGESTED it in the first > place - that it should be on the RB list that deals with coordination, > and not on the non-coordination list. > > Joe M. >
