Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination
Still, I fail to see how a national list is less effective than a local list. Local lists are fine for local discussions, but cannot take the place of a national list. Maybe SCAROA should host a RB list, too??? BTW, the having gone to a website comment and URL you made AFTER I asked the question THEN berating me for not going to the website is hardly fair or honest. I think I see who is really tapping here. You're trying to take RB discussions away from the RB lists. The RBC list is the official list for coordination discussions that would otherwise be on THIS list - like it or not, that's the way it is. There are also dozens if not hundreds of other local coordination lists, so please don't try to promote one of them as being 'the' place for all coordination discussions. There is an official list for such discussions, and I posted it. If you don't like the lists Kevin runs, there are unsubscription links on all of them. Joe M. raffertysec wrote: Having gone to the web site you'd have found that it is the Southern California Amateur Repeater Owners Association :) Creating a subset list below this only spreads conversations here and there. http://scaroa.org has been around longer than the sublist or the new Google list. Please note that I didn't bring this issue here, but when I read a tap dance I had to reply. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote: The list is a subset of this list, and again, was created to keep coordination discussions off this list. What is SCAROA anyway? Joe M. raffertysec wrote: Why duplicate the efforts? SCAROA has long existed. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH mch@ wrote: The list owner created http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder-Coordination/ for coordination issues related to building repeaters. This was done specifically to keep coordination issues off *this* list. Joe M. raffertysec wrote: I will also disagree in that building a repeater involves coordination and this thread IS relevent to the ham in southern California. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Mike Mullarkey k7pfj@ 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 Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.21/2102 - Release Date: 05/07/09 05:57:00 Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.21/2103 - Release Date: 05/07/09 18:05:00
[Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination
You have misread and misunderstood his comments. He attempted to direct comments to a more appropriate forum. 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. You SHOULD have gone to the web site to see what it was about before asking him what it was about. The address has been posted several times. 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. 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. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote: Still, I fail to see how a national list is less effective than a local list. Local lists are fine for local discussions, but cannot take the place of a national list. Maybe SCAROA should host a RB list, too??? BTW, the having gone to a website comment and URL you made AFTER I asked the question THEN berating me for not going to the website is hardly fair or honest. I think I see who is really tapping here. You're trying to take RB discussions away from the RB lists. The RBC list is the official list for coordination discussions that would otherwise be on THIS list - like it or not, that's the way it is. There are also dozens if not hundreds of other local coordination lists, so please don't try to promote one of them as being 'the' place for all coordination discussions. There is an official list for such discussions, and I posted it. If you don't like the lists Kevin runs, there are unsubscription links on all of them. Joe M. raffertysec wrote: Having gone to the web site you'd have found that it is the Southern California Amateur Repeater Owners Association :) Creating a subset list below this only spreads conversations here and there. http://scaroa.org has been around longer than the sublist or the new Google list. Please note that I didn't bring this issue here, but when I read a tap dance I had to reply. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH mch@ wrote: The list is a subset of this list, and again, was created to keep coordination discussions off this list. What is SCAROA anyway? Joe M. raffertysec wrote: Why duplicate the efforts? SCAROA has long existed. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH mch@ wrote: The list owner created http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder-Coordination/ for coordination issues related to building repeaters. This was done specifically to keep coordination issues off *this* list. Joe M. raffertysec wrote: I will also disagree in that building a repeater involves coordination and this thread IS relevent to the ham in southern California. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Mike Mullarkey k7pfj@ 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 Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.21/2102 - Release
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination
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.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination
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.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination
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 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. Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination
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.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination - CLOSED!!
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
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination
At 5/8/2009 14:35, you wrote: 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. TASMA currently does not have a 70 cm bandplan. There are proposals within TASMA being worked on, as noted by other postings here or elsewhere, to commence 70 cm band coordination activities which would include, among other things, adoption of some sort of 70 cm bandplan. That is all they are at this point - proposals. They will be discussed at our August general meeting possibly voted on at our December general meeting. All who have an interest in this, for or against, are strongly encouraged to join TASMA participate in the decision making process. Full voting membership is open to all amateurs with 2 meter operating privileges (I think that's all licensed amateurs now). That is all I will say here, since this topic is out of bounds for this list. I've been a subscriber to repeater-builder-coordination since it's inception some 2 years ago, will be happy to pick up the thread there after Memorial day as I'll be on travel until then internet access may be iffy for me. Sorry to take up the bandwidth on this topic here, but I felt this was the best way to wrap it up. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination
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. (Kevin and Scott - please forgive the off topic post) I am not sure where the well over 100 repeater owner members comes from as the SCAROA membership page has a grand total of eleven members - seven of which are TASMA board members that appear to have joined today (likely to see what you have been talking about) and have never posted there. Discounting the TASMA board members, that leaves a grand total of four members. Of those four, one is listed as not being a repeater owner. Unless my math is wrong, that leaves three independent repeater owners as members. Looking at the few posts there (shall I say rants), it would appear whomever is posting has a negative / odd /twisted perspective of repeater ownership. The repeater-builder-coordination group has 35 members. The last posting was in December 2007. Before that, there were three posts in January 2007. It is a nice idea, but for whatever reason has not been well accepted by repeater owners. Neither of the groups above seem to be a viable place to get the issues heard and discussed by a large number of repeater system owners. I would guess that many folks who have dealt with any coordination committee in a metropolitan area have had complaints about their local committee(s). Perhaps instead of attempting to start a new / alternative coordination group(s), those that feel slighted should run for office within the current committees and implement the changes they believe would enhance the current methods. Both SCRRBA and TASMA hold elections. No one is stopping you or anyone else from running for office. I'm confident there are things within both committees that could be done better / more efficiently. But considering the number of systems they each have purview over, I'm not sure what you or anyone could do better (and still hold a full time job). Much of the current discussion of TASMA taking over the 440 band from SCRRBA could be stopped permanently if Bob or any of the other TASMA board members would state unequivocally that they are not planning, discussing, nor thinking of doing so and would not in the future either. Ed Yoho W6YJ (an evil repeater owner for more than forty years)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination
I'm sorry, can SOMEone please tell me how this thread related to building repeaters? 73 de N4SHD From: Ed Yoho w6yj_ya...@67hz.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, May 8, 2009 6:17:27 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination 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. (Kevin and Scott - please forgive the off topic post) I am not sure where the well over 100 repeater owner members comes from as the SCAROA membership page has a grand total of eleven members - seven of which are TASMA board members that appear to have joined today (likely to see what you have been talking about) and have never posted there. Discounting the TASMA board members, that leaves a grand total of four members. Of those four, one is listed as not being a repeater owner. Unless my math is wrong, that leaves three independent repeater owners as members. Looking at the few posts there (shall I say rants), it would appear whomever is posting has a negative / odd /twisted perspective of repeater ownership. The repeater-builder- coordination group has 35 members. The last posting was in December 2007. Before that, there were three posts in January 2007. It is a nice idea, but for whatever reason has not been well accepted by repeater owners. Neither of the groups above seem to be a viable place to get the issues heard and discussed by a large number of repeater system owners. I would guess that many folks who have dealt with any coordination committee in a metropolitan area have had complaints about their local committee(s) . Perhaps instead of attempting to start a new / alternative coordination group(s), those that feel slighted should run for office within the current committees and implement the changes they believe would enhance the current methods. Both SCRRBA and TASMA hold elections. No one is stopping you or anyone else from running for office. I'm confident there are things within both committees that could be done better / more efficiently. But considering the number of systems they each have purview over, I'm not sure what you or anyone could do better (and still hold a full time job). Much of the current discussion of TASMA taking over the 440 band from SCRRBA could be stopped permanently if Bob or any of the other TASMA board members would state unequivocally that they are not planning, discussing, nor thinking of doing so and would not in the future either. Ed Yoho W6YJ (an evil repeater owner for more than forty years)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination
It's NOT, but apprently they can't get it to stop either. It's the last word... (well my word that is always the right word) problem. Jim- WA9FPT - Original Message - From: Dean Nash To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination I'm sorry, can SOMEone please tell me how this thread related to building repeaters? 73 de N4SHD -- From: Ed Yoho w6yj_ya...@67hz.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, May 8, 2009 6:17:27 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination 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. (Kevin and Scott - please forgive the off topic post) I am not sure where the well over 100 repeater owner members comes from as the SCAROA membership page has a grand total of eleven members - seven of which are TASMA board members that appear to have joined today (likely to see what you have been talking about) and have never posted there. Discounting the TASMA board members, that leaves a grand total of four members. Of those four, one is listed as not being a repeater owner. Unless my math is wrong, that leaves three independent repeater owners as members. Looking at the few posts there (shall I say rants), it would appear whomever is posting has a negative / odd /twisted perspective of repeater ownership. The repeater-builder- coordination group has 35 members. The last posting was in December 2007. Before that, there were three posts in January 2007. It is a nice idea, but for whatever reason has not been well accepted by repeater owners. Neither of the groups above seem to be a viable place to get the issues heard and discussed by a large number of repeater system owners. I would guess that many folks who have dealt with any coordination committee in a metropolitan area have had complaints about their local committee(s) . Perhaps instead of attempting to start a new / alternative coordination group(s), those that feel slighted should run for office within the current committees and implement the changes they believe would enhance the current methods. Both SCRRBA and TASMA hold elections. No one is stopping you or anyone else from running for office. I'm confident there are things within both committees that could be done better / more efficiently. But considering the number of systems they each have purview over, I'm not sure what you or anyone could do better (and still hold a full time job). Much of the current discussion of TASMA taking over the 440 band from SCRRBA could be stopped permanently if Bob or any of the other TASMA board members would state unequivocally that they are not planning, discussing, nor thinking of doing so and would not in the future either. Ed Yoho W6YJ (an evil repeater owner for more than forty years)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination
Repeaters need functional band coordination. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 08 May 2009 07:52:59 PM PDT From: Dean Nash n4...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination I'm sorry, can SOMEone please tell me how this thread related to building repeaters? 73 de N4SHD From: Ed Yoho w6yj_ya...@67hz.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, May 8, 2009 6:17:27 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination 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. (Kevin and Scott - please forgive the off topic post) I am not sure where the well over 100 repeater owner members comes from as the SCAROA membership page has a grand total of eleven members - seven of which are TASMA board members that appear to have joined today (likely to see what you have been talking about) and have never posted there. Discounting the TASMA board members, that leaves a grand total of four members. Of those four, one is listed as not being a repeater owner. Unless my math is wrong, that leaves three independent repeater owners as members. Looking at the few posts there (shall I say rants), it would appear whomever is posting has a negative / odd /twisted perspective of repeater ownership. The repeater-builder- coordination group has 35 members. The last posting was in December 2007. Before that, there were three posts in January 2007. It is a nice idea, but for whatever reason has not been well accepted by repeater owners. Neither of the groups above seem to be a viable place to get the issues heard and discussed by a large number of repeater system owners. I would guess that many folks who have dealt with any coordination committee in a metropolitan area have had complaints about their local committee(s) . Perhaps instead of attempting to start a new / alternative coordination group(s), those that feel slighted should run for office within the current committees and implement the changes they believe would enhance the current methods. Both SCRRBA and TASMA hold elections. No one is stopping you or anyone else from running for office. I'm confident there are things within both committees that could be done better / more efficiently. But considering the number of systems they each have purview over, I'm not sure what you or anyone could do better (and still hold a full time job). Much of the current discussion of TASMA taking over the 440 band from SCRRBA could be stopped permanently if Bob or any of the other TASMA board members would state unequivocally that they are not planning, discussing, nor thinking of doing so and would not in the future either. Ed Yoho W6YJ (an evil repeater owner for more than forty years)
[Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination
Respectfully sir, I really don't care to hear about your issues with the coordinating body and who likes or dis likes Shorty and his system... But then you post: ...if you really know him he is a very generous person. If I have this right you don't want to read negatives about a man that abuses part 97 by earning a living linking repeaters 87 times and is now perched to take over TASMA and SCRBBA and assign himself whatever he needs to further monopolize amateur radio on 2 and 440 in southern California, but you can post your affirmative opinion of him? Rather one-sided and biased, wouldn't you agree? You're in Colorado and I agree that TASMA business doesn't belong here. But it is here. I already suggested that this be moved elsewhere. In the meantime a retraction of naivete from Bob Dengler would be appropriate. I replied as if he knows nothing but knows everything. I will also disagree in that building a repeater involves coordination and this thread IS relevent to the ham in southern California. --- 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
[Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination
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=16posted=1#post16 scaroa.org/showthread.php?p=16posted=1#post16 http://forums. http://forums.scaroa.org/showthread.php?p=16posted=1#post16 scaroa.org/showthread.php?p=16posted=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
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination
The list owner created http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder-Coordination/ for coordination issues related to building repeaters. This was done specifically to keep coordination issues off *this* list. Joe M. raffertysec wrote: I will also disagree in that building a repeater involves coordination and this thread IS relevent to the ham in southern California. --- 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 Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.21/2102 - Release Date: 05/07/09 05:57:00
[Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination
Why duplicate the efforts? SCAROA has long existed. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote: The list owner created http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder-Coordination/ for coordination issues related to building repeaters. This was done specifically to keep coordination issues off *this* list. Joe M. raffertysec wrote: I will also disagree in that building a repeater involves coordination and this thread IS relevent to the ham in southern California. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Mike Mullarkey k7pfj@ 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 Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.21/2102 - Release Date: 05/07/09 05:57:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination
The list is a subset of this list, and again, was created to keep coordination discussions off this list. What is SCAROA anyway? Joe M. raffertysec wrote: Why duplicate the efforts? SCAROA has long existed. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote: The list owner created http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder-Coordination/ for coordination issues related to building repeaters. This was done specifically to keep coordination issues off *this* list. Joe M. raffertysec wrote: I will also disagree in that building a repeater involves coordination and this thread IS relevent to the ham in southern California. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Mike Mullarkey k7pfj@ 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 Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.21/2102 - Release Date: 05/07/09 05:57:00 Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination
Having gone to the web site you'd have found that it is the Southern California Amateur Repeater Owners Association :) Creating a subset list below this only spreads conversations here and there. http://scaroa.org has been around longer than the sublist or the new Google list. Please note that I didn't bring this issue here, but when I read a tap dance I had to reply. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote: The list is a subset of this list, and again, was created to keep coordination discussions off this list. What is SCAROA anyway? Joe M. raffertysec wrote: Why duplicate the efforts? SCAROA has long existed. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH mch@ wrote: The list owner created http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder-Coordination/ for coordination issues related to building repeaters. This was done specifically to keep coordination issues off *this* list. Joe M. raffertysec wrote: I will also disagree in that building a repeater involves coordination and this thread IS relevent to the ham in southern California. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Mike Mullarkey k7pfj@ 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 Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.21/2102 - Release Date: 05/07/09 05:57:00 Yahoo! Groups Links
[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.scaroa.org/showthread.php?p=16posted=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.thedeanfamily.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@yahoogroups.com, n...@... 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
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@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of raffertysec Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:44 PM To: Repeater-Builder@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.scaroa.org/showthread.php?p=16posted=1#post16 http://forums.scaroa.org/showthread.php?p=16posted=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.thedeanfamily.com/winreptr.htm http://www.thedeanfamily.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@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com , n...@... 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
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA 70 cm band coordination
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=16posted=1#post16 scaroa.org/showthread.php?p=16posted=1#post16 http://forums. http://forums.scaroa.org/showthread.php?p=16posted=1#post16 scaroa.org/showthread.php?p=16posted=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 , n...@... 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
Re: [Repeater-Builder] RE: TASMA 70 cm band coordination
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
