THIS ENTIRE THREAD IS OUT OF LINE AND AGAINST LIST RULES!! Per Kevin and my wishes, this topic is now closed. Any further discussion by ANY parties will lead to people being banned from this list. Understood??
Scott N3XCC - List co-owner Scott Zimmerman Amateur Radio Call N3XCC 474 Barnett Road Boswell, PA 15531 raffertysec wrote: > If it is not wanted here, Joe, stop responding while fanning the flames. > SCAROA does not want it here beause it wants a neutral forum where the list > owner cannot delete a message and then moderate the user. I've am a member of > many Yahoo groups and see this daily. Be part of the "in crowd" and speak > with impunity. But dare you be an outsider your words are subject to removal. > > Does this list owner have a working relationship with the ARRL and NFCC on > this exact issue? No, but SCAROA does. That is THE point and that is the > fear. We want NOTHING buried and that is obvious. But it remains a local > issue. You're not even in California and have no dog in this fight. THAT is a > reason to keep it local. But it seems more to me that you are able to protect > your repeater guru here. Exactly why do you keep replying if you have nothing > to do with this? Move over to http://scaroa.org. The time spent just building > their web site shows that they are serious. > > Mr. Dengler still has not answered why he made the self-serving statement > that TASMA doesn't have a 70cm plan when they have a motion before them to > adopt the SCRRBA plan. Mr. Dengler, man up and own up. Do it here, do it on > the other list, or do it on SCAROA where your presence would be appreciated. > It doesn't have to be a fight, either. Dialogue. Communication. But hiding > behind the internet in silence only brings more of the same towards you. > > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH <m...@...> wrote: >> Sounds like you want it buried on a local list. That's fine. I would >> like to see what's going on, but I'm not going to join 75 local lists to >> keep tabs on the various areas. That's the reason for having a national >> list. >> >> My only insistence was that it move from the RB list to the RBC list as >> desired by the list owner, as the RB list is not for coordination >> issues. That's why the RBC list was created - to keep the scope the >> same, but separate the coordination threads from the building threads. >> >> As for neutral, it sounds like you don't want a more neutral forum - you >> want it on a forum where virtually everyone has a direct stake in the >> matter. Again, that's fine. >> >> At this point, I don't care where it goes - just keep it off this list, >> as it's not wanted here. >> >> Joe M. >> >> raffertysec wrote: >>> 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 <mch@> 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. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.22/2105 - Release Date: 05/08/09 > 11:43:00 >
