RE: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
Hi Mike, The main objection would be the user equipment. Controllers go for around $600 new, to $200 on the surplus market. There are some $1200 Zetrons, but there are also many less expensive ones. Combining 2 M or even 440 is a case by case issue depending on the number of channels, spacing, etc, and can range from interleaving 2 bpbr duplexers, for next to nothing in cost, to hybrids, isolators, and big expensive cavities costing many thousands of dollars, but where the rubber meets the road is for the users to buy an LTR radio. Best regards, Steve -Original Message- From: Mike Mullarkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 6:11 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks Yea I can really see hams spend as much or close as much for a LTR radio tom have there private talk group. Come on guys lets get real here unless there [Steve Bosshard (NU5D)] --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.804 / Virus Database: 546 - Release Date: 11/30/2004 Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Nate Duehr wrote: His comments about old farts is probably technically accurate. A large percentage of older hams (too large) will invite you over for an 807 and talk mighty talk about the old days of radio but they won't take ten minutes to solder a $30 tone board into their old [insert old 2m rig here]. And they're uneducated and lazy about learning the real issues surrounding the operation of a modern repeater at a high-RF site. To be fair, I've had an old-timer school me once or twice. I got to talking with him about a 25+ year old two-meter radio and the problem with CTCSS and he told me that he fixed that problem already. With two transistors and some parts, he built an astable multivibrator on 100hz and got into the repeater just fine. Sounded a bit off, being a square wave, and a little hot, but it did work and didn't cost more than $5. As far as the modern concerns of a high-RF enviroment, I think a lot of people have a lot to learn about radio in those enviroments. Some people have made sucessful careers engineering it alone, so you know it's not the easiest racket out there. And the FCC narrowbanding every other service is just going to make things worse. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR [EMAIL PROTECTED] TGIFreeBSD IM: 'KrisBSD' BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU! - 1984-2004 - 20 yrs of Govt Surveillance This message brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, mch wrote: If that is meant to imply that old is bad, and newer is better, we should be talking about adding CDCSS (AKA DPL) to the repeaters, not CTCSS (AKA PL)! (or maybe even LTR as opposed to CTCSS OR CDCSS) Put up about three LTR repeaters with different talk groups and you'd have a free repeater for every conversation on two meters. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR [EMAIL PROTECTED] TGIFreeBSD IM: 'KrisBSD' BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU! - 1984-2004 - 20 yrs of Govt Surveillance This message brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
As Dennis Miller would say... I don't want to get off on a rant here, but... Tony King - W4ZT wrote: Gentlemen, if you can't offer sincere help or an opinion that's relevant or that doesn't reflect negatively on your upbringing, it might be better to leave it alone. And how exactly is bringing Art's supposedly bad upbringing into the conversation sincere help or an opinion that's relevant? I call foul on your supposed moral high-ground on that one. He didn't exactly say, Your mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries, so I'm not sure what you're all up in arms about. (With apologies to Monty Python.) Just so we know where you stand on the issue: I notice that your callsign is a 4-land call -- do you have an un-toned repeater in SERA territory? (Just wondering if you have a dog in this fight.) I'm just curious. Art's opinion is correct in a lot of people's eyes -- CTCSS, a 1970's technology that's well-proven and works -- shouldn't be so hard to get hams to use 30 years after it was in fairly wide use in the commercial world. And older hams *are* typically the people too lazy to implement it, for all their talk of I remember when I built my own radio, walking uphill in the snow, both ways. His comments about old farts is probably technically accurate. A large percentage of older hams (too large) will invite you over for an 807 and talk mighty talk about the old days of radio but they won't take ten minutes to solder a $30 tone board into their old [insert old 2m rig here]. And they're uneducated and lazy about learning the real issues surrounding the operation of a modern repeater at a high-RF site. For this behaviour, it's approprate they get a few public raspberries. Using the endearing term, Old Fart works. How do you convince people to use this OLD technology if even the coordination powers that be back off from forcing the issue? Maybe that's how he could have phrased it for a lively discussion. We all know this is a problem facing many of us in densely populated areas -- this is Repeater-Builder, for goodness sakes. We've all seen it. Art was just frustrated with the mentality and voiced it. Many people are. I found the information he provided useful in that I didn't know SERA was talking about making a change in their policy, and I didn't think SERA would back down on that one if they were seriously considering it. That's unfortunate if they did. They're a big powerful organization and can use that power for good or evil or nothing. In this case, it sounds like they might have opted for the third option. Because they're so large, a lot of other coordinating bodies follow suit on issues like this one. Perhaps that was the unwritten frustration in Art's message. I don't know. I'm NOT saying that it was for the reasons that Art surmises though... that's his OPINION. Art's joking comments about marrying cousins is an old enough joke my grandfather at age 87 knows about it, so I wouldn't take it too literally. Requiring everyone to be politically correct and the associated groupthink is double-plus bad. (With apologies to Orwell.) Don't worry Art, having a personal opinion about something and being allowed to discuss it will come back into vogue someday, hopefully. Requiring CTCSS on the other hand, is good practice. Colorado has required it now for all new coordinations for quite some time now. There's no restriction on whether or not you can turn it off if you feel like it, but you're required to have it available on your system. If you experience interference that using your CTCSS access can clear up, and complain -- well, then it's shame on you. And there's at least a recourse for the coordination folks to point at the rules and say, You're choosing to operate outside your coordination. That's smart. Waiting for people to do it on their own is dumb, because it makes the coordination body have to work extra hard when they complain about co-channel and adjacent-channel interference, or worse -- have problems with mixing at sites with multiple transmitters and haven't bothered to learn enough about mixing to deal with the problem themselves. Nate WY0X Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: CTCSS vs. carrier access (was Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks)
Just a point the Metro-Comm system here on the east coast. The voice ID comes on and tells you the PL is 156.7 system wide. In the Philly PA area the standard tone is 131.8 so you can just have the voice or CW ID tell you the PL. A lot of the new radio's will scan for the PL and that is real neat. Very best of 73, Russ, W3CH - Original Message - From: Bob Dengler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 9:14 PM Subject: CTCSS vs. carrier access (was Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks) At 12/2/2004 05:37 PM, you wrote: His comments about old farts is probably technically accurate. A large percentage of older hams (too large) will invite you over for an 807 and talk mighty talk about the old days of radio but they won't take ten minutes to solder a $30 tone board into their old [insert old 2m rig here]. I'm in no way defending the carrier-access crowd, but just for the record: out here in SoCal the primary objection to 100% CTCSS on all 2 meter systems is that it makes it harder for travelers to stumble across repeaters. Thanks to (more or less) standardized bandplans auto repeater shifts in newer transceivers, one could just dial up frequencies kerchunk until a repeater was found. Now, unless the repeater is in use one would have to buzz through all 32 (or 37, does anyone use any of those in-between or above 203.5 Hz?) tones. The consensus among the 2 meter crowd here is that there should be a few systems on 2 meters that remain in carrier access for just this reason to accomodate those passing through the area that didn't bring their repeater guide along. All coordinations for new systems on all bands do require CTCSS. I know that some areas have standardized open CTCSS tones that make it easy to find systems the old fashioned way (Rochester NY is a good example: just set your CTCSS to 110.9 you're done). Unfortunately SoCal is too densely populated to standardize on a single tone. 99.9% of the hams on VHF/UHF out here have CTCSS capability. The remaining .01% probably stay on simplex. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
CTCSS vs. carrier access (was Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks)
At 12/2/2004 05:37 PM, you wrote: His comments about old farts is probably technically accurate. A large percentage of older hams (too large) will invite you over for an 807 and talk mighty talk about the old days of radio but they won't take ten minutes to solder a $30 tone board into their old [insert old 2m rig here]. I'm in no way defending the carrier-access crowd, but just for the record: out here in SoCal the primary objection to 100% CTCSS on all 2 meter systems is that it makes it harder for travelers to stumble across repeaters. Thanks to (more or less) standardized bandplans auto repeater shifts in newer transceivers, one could just dial up frequencies kerchunk until a repeater was found. Now, unless the repeater is in use one would have to buzz through all 32 (or 37, does anyone use any of those in-between or above 203.5 Hz?) tones. The consensus among the 2 meter crowd here is that there should be a few systems on 2 meters that remain in carrier access for just this reason to accomodate those passing through the area that didn't bring their repeater guide along. All coordinations for new systems on all bands do require CTCSS. I know that some areas have standardized open CTCSS tones that make it easy to find systems the old fashioned way (Rochester NY is a good example: just set your CTCSS to 110.9 you're done). Unfortunately SoCal is too densely populated to standardize on a single tone. 99.9% of the hams on VHF/UHF out here have CTCSS capability. The remaining .01% probably stay on simplex. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
Unfortunately, Nate apparently missed the entire point... At 08:37 PM 12/2/2004, you wrote: As Dennis Miller would say... I don't want to get off on a rant here, but... oh but you did... Tony King - W4ZT wrote: Gentlemen, if you can't offer sincere help or an opinion that's relevant or that doesn't reflect negatively on your upbringing, it might be better to leave it alone. And how exactly is bringing Art's supposedly bad upbringing into the conversation sincere help or an opinion that's relevant? I call foul on your supposed moral high-ground on that one. I didn't bring anyone's upbringing into the conversation... Art did. If the shoe fits, wear it. My objection is and was NOT about SERA or SERA's policy. Rather my objection is to the apparent careless manner that people go off on others for either not meeting their so called technical standard or for not living where they consider there is a higher moral standard. He didn't exactly say, Your mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries, so I'm not sure what you're all up in arms about. (With apologies to Monty Python.) right... hail Monty ;) but he certainly did imply something else now, didn't he? Joking or not, wrong place, wrong time. What comes next, racial slurs? Inappropriate in any public forum (and private as far as I am concerned). Just so we know where you stand on the issue: I notice that your callsign is a 4-land call -- do you have an un-toned repeater in SERA territory? (Just wondering if you have a dog in this fight.) I'm just curious. Curiosity killed the cat... but just to satisfy yours and perhaps others, I have two coordinated repeaters in SERA territory, both with tone. Again, my comments had nothing to do with SERA's policy. There are reasons to have tone and reasons not to have tone and that wasn't my discussion at all. Re-read my post. Art's opinion is correct in a lot of people's eyes -- CTCSS, a 1970's technology that's well-proven and works -- shouldn't be so hard to get hams to use 30 years after it was in fairly wide use in the commercial world. And older hams *are* typically the people too lazy to implement it, for all their talk of I remember when I built my own radio, walking uphill in the snow, both ways. That was another un-necessary slam at older hams by you. Begging your pardon sir, but you've crossed the line yourself! One day you will be old... when you are, you may look back on the days when you were young and technology was different. Your day will come. His comments about old farts is probably technically accurate. A large percentage of older hams (too large) will invite you over for an 807 and talk mighty talk about the old days of radio but they won't take ten minutes to solder a $30 tone board into their old [insert old 2m rig here]. And they're uneducated and lazy about learning the real issues surrounding the operation of a modern repeater at a high-RF site. Uneducated and lazy... what hole have you lived in and for how long? Look around you at the real intelligent people on this list and others... They are here sharing their knowledge with folks like you and you say things like that. Insults will get you no where. For this behaviour, it's approprate they get a few public raspberries. Using the endearing term, Old Fart works. And you're better than they? Like I said, I couldn't care less how old you are or anyone else is. It has nothing to do with that. Technically, I'm an old fart too... licensed for 40 years. How old are you? Oops, I said I didn't care didn't I? ;) How do you convince people to use this OLD technology if even the coordination powers that be back off from forcing the issue? Maybe that's how he could have phrased it for a lively discussion. We all know this is a problem facing many of us in densely populated areas -- this is Repeater-Builder, for goodness sakes. We've all seen it. Art was just frustrated with the mentality and voiced it. Many people are. I didn't know that (might have something to do with cousins marrying cousins) was the issue. If that is your idea of Southern mentality then you've lived under the wrong mushroom. I found the information he provided useful in that I didn't know SERA was talking about making a change in their policy, and I didn't think SERA would back down on that one if they were seriously considering it. That's unfortunate if they did. They're a big powerful organization and can use that power for good or evil or nothing. In this case, it sounds like they might have opted for the third option. Because they're so large, a lot of other coordinating bodies follow suit on issues like this one. Perhaps that was the unwritten frustration in Art's message. I don't know. I'm NOT saying that it was for the reasons that Art surmises though... that's his OPINION. Art's joking comments about marrying cousins is an old enough joke my grandfather at age 87 knows about it, so I
Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
Coordination has become a joke in certain areas, because the coordination representatives are not professional or following decent rules of conduct. I *NEVER* give my EXACT location in coordination applications anymore (in Oregon). I also am very guarded about what information I do give. In Oregon, I have witnessed representatives of the coordination council give out privledged information such as repeater location, employer, home addresses, etc. In one instance a member of the coordination council contacted my supervisor (also a ham) and told my supervisor if he wanted to be successful as a repeater owner in Oregon then he shouldn't employ me!! (That person is no longer on the coordination board) These types of things have happened going back 15 years with several different coordination representatives. For some reason, in Oregon, these problems continue to fester (as recently as 18 months ago). I also have repeaters coordinated in Washington and Iowa, have never had these types of problems in those states. -- Original Message -- Received: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 02:30:33 PM CST From: Neil McKie [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks See below ... (please excuse me, Kevin) mch wrote: Buley, Kenneth L (GE Consumer Industrial) wrote: Uhhh... coordinators DO have the authority to set the terms for which they will grant (or deny) a coordination. That is correct, they have the authority to set any terms that happen to please them, however, they have no authority, other than denial of coordination, to prevent anyone from operating without being coordinated. I would agree with that. Should, however, someone operate CSQ without coordination, and cause interference to another repeater that is using CTCSS/CDCSS, the FCC would side with the repeater using means to reduce the interference (using CTCSS/CDCSS). And, if the other repeater is coordinated, it's an open and shut case - the uncoordinated repeater has to solve the interference. CFR 47, Part 97 - 97.205(c) (read in part) . the licensee of the non-coordinated repeater has the primary responsibility to resolve the interference. Neil - WA6KLA It's all about the effort made to reduce the interference. The FCC will always side with the ones who are making an effort. (all else being equal) If you say the coordinator has no authority to require specifications, then what IS a coordination? Answer: It's a set of operating conditions which must be met in order to get along with other cochannel and adjacent channel operations. That INCLUDES requiring CTCSS/CDCSS. Again, true, however, they have no authority to ENFORCE those requirements. Other than the fact that if someone is operating in violation of their coordination, it's the same as not being coordinated, and they have to resolve any interference. The FCC DOES ask the coordinators for a copy of the coordination when interference issues arise. The terms are set in black and white, and most (perhaps all?) coordinators specify that the coordination is null and void if the parameters are exceeded. Again, what is the purpose of coordination if you can do anything you want. Coordination only works because the participating parties VOLUNTEER to agree to the terms of the coordination as a means of reducing or eliminating interference. The FCC suggests the use of coordinating bodies because it takes the workload off of THEM !! However, it is the FCC who ultimately has AUTHORITY to decide and the power to ENFORCE those decisions concerning interference whether coordination is involved or not. The FCC 'suggests' the use of a coordinator? They clearly state that not using one puts all the burden of eliminating interference on the uncoordinated system. That is, to me, more than a suggestion. It's a strong recommendation and a warning of liability for not using one. Coordination works when (most) everyone wants to play nice, together. If EVERYONE wanted to get along, then coordination would be unnecessary. Even when everyone wants to play nice, coordination maintains an independant record of the 'rules'. Professional football players all want to play fair and not hurt anyone. Yet, they all have refs to police the game to ensure what they all want is done. Joe M. Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Snide Remarks redux (was 12-Step Program for Carrier Squelch Addiction (was: snide remarks))
From: Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:59:37 -0700 Subject: [Repeater-Builder] 12-Step Program for Carrier Squelch Addiction (was: snide remarks) On Dec 2, 2004, at 9:05 PM, Tony King - W4ZT wrote: Unfortunately, Nate apparently missed the entire point... No I didn't. Sure you did. It sailed right over your head; that's what that whoosh you heard was. Is your hair any shorter on top? Drop the insults That's what he's trying to persuade all the list members to do. *That* is the point that you missed, Mr. Duehr. de kg7yy Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
From: JOHN MACKEY [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:46:28 -0600 Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks Coordination has become a joke in certain areas, because the coordination representatives are not professional or following decent rules of conduct. [snip] Gee. Tony's intent and meaning sailed right over the top of your head, didn't it? Are you normally this oblivious, or is this a special case? Am I justified in calling your powers of observation into question? If I am, is a public forum the proper place to do so? Let's return to the events that led to Mr. King's ire, shall we? A new repeater builder asked how to invert the sense of a squelch signal, and one of the august (yes, august is properly capitalized. Look it up) members of this mailing list jumped on him with all four feet. Yes, I just did imply that the jumper is an animal; allow me to make it explicit by calling him a jackass. For the wasted bandwidth, he could have answered the question two or three ways; instead, he chose to assuage his own feelings of inferiority by lording it over someone he saw as lower on the totem pole. Was that justified? Another member of this list attempted to dissuade a would-be repeater ownder from erecting another 10 meter repeater. In the course of that discussion, someone mentioned coordination -- and another august member of this list loosed a highly unprofessional broadside at someone that was not present to defend himself. You yourself have continued to beat the place in the road where there used to be a greasy spot where a dead horse used to lay, hijacking Mr. King's thread in order to do so. What is your justification in doing so? Now allow me to add one of my own. A new member posted in HTML. After a request that he quit doing so, he did. He left Micro$oft's damnedable smart quotes enabled, though, and thoroughly scrambled the presentation in my xterm window on my Linux computer. When I asked him to turn them off, yet another august member of this list set up a straw man and thoroughly demolished it, implying as he did so that I was less than capable if I could not parse meaning from within HTML coding. I didn't think he needed to be set straight in public, so I sent him a private E-mail informing him that his bogus argument was, in point of fact, bogus. See, Micro$lop used control characters for their damnedable smart quotes, and terminals -- such as xterm, the X Terminal -- use control characters to, well, control the behavior of the terminal. They ring the bell, or turn off scroll, or reposition the cursor, or clear the viewing window, or any number of other things. That's why they're called control characters and why the key used to create them is called the control key. Apparently, instead of correcting him in private I should have exposed his ignorance in public and held him to account for it. Mea culpa. I have corrected my error here. Mr. Mackey, do you care to address even *one* of these three examples of what Mr. King is inveighing against, or do you merely wish to continue to beat the spot where a dead horse used to lie? Your call, sir. de kg7yy Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
Hi Barry, very carefully risking a brief step into rules discussion, my apology In part 97.205 (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/47cfr97_03.html) there's no provision for anything other than a call sign assigned to an individual or a club. FCC assigned call signs for amateur repeaters ended years ago. When the requirement for FCC assigned repeater call signs ended, they no longer renewed the licenses they granted under the old rules. That's why I said previously WR4APT. 73, Tony W4ZT At 02:33 AM 12/3/2004, Barry wrote: Hello Tony, with respect for your old fart status where under part 97 does it allow you to place your FCC assigned callsign for your personal station on your repeater? Only the FCC can assign a callsign to a repeater through a special application if requested, otherwise no transmission of a personal callsign is authorized per part 97.x. Regards, Barry snip Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
Mr. Grizzard- So now I ask YOU, are you normally this oblivious, or is this a special case? As you state below, the thread evolved into discussing coordination. The squelch sense issue was *WELL* addressed in recent threads here. It is also covered on several web sites in very, very basic transistor logic handbooks. Why do you propose beating that dead horse, Mr. Grizzard? -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 08:10:03 AM CST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks From: JOHN MACKEY [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:46:28 -0600 Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks Coordination has become a joke in certain areas, because the coordination representatives are not professional or following decent rules of conduct. [snip] Gee. Tony's intent and meaning sailed right over the top of your head, didn't it? Are you normally this oblivious, or is this a special case? Am I justified in calling your powers of observation into question? If I am, is a public forum the proper place to do so? Let's return to the events that led to Mr. King's ire, shall we? A new repeater builder asked how to invert the sense of a squelch signal, and one of the august (yes, august is properly capitalized. Look it up) members of this mailing list jumped on him with all four feet. Yes, I just did imply that the jumper is an animal; allow me to make it explicit by calling him a jackass. For the wasted bandwidth, he could have answered the question two or three ways; instead, he chose to assuage his own feelings of inferiority by lording it over someone he saw as lower on the totem pole. Was that justified? Another member of this list attempted to dissuade a would-be repeater ownder from erecting another 10 meter repeater. In the course of that discussion, someone mentioned coordination -- and another august member of this list loosed a highly unprofessional broadside at someone that was not present to defend himself. You yourself have continued to beat the place in the road where there used to be a greasy spot where a dead horse used to lay, hijacking Mr. King's thread in order to do so. What is your justification in doing so? Now allow me to add one of my own. A new member posted in HTML. After a request that he quit doing so, he did. He left Micro$oft's damnedable smart quotes enabled, though, and thoroughly scrambled the presentation in my xterm window on my Linux computer. When I asked him to turn them off, yet another august member of this list set up a straw man and thoroughly demolished it, implying as he did so that I was less than capable if I could not parse meaning from within HTML coding. I didn't think he needed to be set straight in public, so I sent him a private E-mail informing him that his bogus argument was, in point of fact, bogus. See, Micro$lop used control characters for their damnedable smart quotes, and terminals -- such as xterm, the X Terminal -- use control characters to, well, control the behavior of the terminal. They ring the bell, or turn off scroll, or reposition the cursor, or clear the viewing window, or any number of other things. That's why they're called control characters and why the key used to create them is called the control key. Apparently, instead of correcting him in private I should have exposed his ignorance in public and held him to account for it. Mea culpa. I have corrected my error here. Mr. Mackey, do you care to address even *one* of these three examples of what Mr. King is inveighing against, or do you merely wish to continue to beat the spot where a dead horse used to lie? Your call, sir. de kg7yy Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
Is this the Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com or Whiner's Club Kenneth Buley Bullitt County DES CD-2 Bullitt County Red Cross/Certified ECRVDriver/Operator BC-6 Bullitt County ARES\RACES Coordinator KY4DES Mr. Grizzard- So now I ask YOU, are you normally this oblivious, or is this a special case? As you state below, the thread evolved into discussing coordination. The squelch sense issue was *WELL* addressed in recent threads here. It is also covered on several web sites in very, very basic transistor logic handbooks. Why do you propose beating that dead horse, Mr. Grizzard? snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
Nate - it's WORSE than than that!! CTCSS was introduced under the trademark name of Private Line by Motorola in the 1950's. It is FIFTY year old technology!! -- Original Message -- Received: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 07:38:52 PM CST From: Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] SNIP Art's opinion is correct in a lot of people's eyes -- CTCSS, a 1970's technology that's well-proven and works -- shouldn't be so hard to get hams to use 30 years after it was in fairly wide use in the commercial world. And older hams *are* typically the people too lazy to implement it, for all their talk of I remember when I built my own radio, SNIP Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
I didn't initially want to step into this, or encourage this discussion. However, some have posted their more thoughtful and comprehensive comments. Therefore, I will post a few of my own here now. Political correctness is a fact of life, but courtesy should reign above all. Living in one culture or another without direct knowledge of the other's mindset, one should be a little more tolerant and not assume eveyone else, those with another opinion, is an inbred idiot. Southerners can Get 'er done! Today, more than ever, we need to help our repeater owners conform to good engineering and good amateur practice. It only takes a few hours of studying a QA resource, followed by testing, to be authorized to put up a repeater. That doesn't necessarily help the newbie repeater owner be fully up to snuff on good engineering and good amateur practice. Has anyone given any thought as to how much interference will occur once the FCC authorizes auxiliary operation on two-meters? We already have quasi-auxiliary operations, such as on-channel remote-bases and VoIP links. Of those, some have been problems, and others have not. The use of tone access should be strongly encouraged. Steve, AA5SG - Original Message - From: Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 7:37 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks snip Requiring everyone to be politically correct and the associated groupthink is double-plus bad. (With apologies to Orwell.) Don't worry, having a personal opinion about something and being allowed to discuss it will come back into vogue someday, hopefully. Requiring CTCSS on the other hand, is good practice. Colorado has required it now for all new coordinations for quite some time now. There's no restriction on whether or not you can turn it off if you feel like it, but you're required to have it available on your system. If you experience interference that using your CTCSS access can clear up, and complain -- well, then it's shame on you. And there's at least a recourse for the coordination folks to point at the rules and say, You're choosing to operate outside your coordination. That's smart. Waiting for people to do it on their own is dumb, because it makes the coordination body have to work extra hard when they complain about co-channel and adjacent-channel interference, or worse -- have problems with mixing at sites with multiple transmitters and haven't bothered to learn enough about mixing to deal with the problem themselves. Nate WY0X Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
I agree.let's get back to technical discussions now and away from setting technically worthy criteria of someone posting a question on the list Ron WW8RR -Original Message- From: Buley, Kenneth L (GE Consumer Industrial) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 11:07 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks Is this the Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com or Whiner's Club Kenneth Buley Bullitt County DES CD-2 Bullitt County Red Cross/Certified ECRVDriver/Operator BC-6 Bullitt County ARES\RACES Coordinator KY4DES Mr. Grizzard- So now I ask YOU, are you normally this oblivious, or is this a special case? As you state below, the thread evolved into discussing coordination. The squelch sense issue was *WELL* addressed in recent threads here. It is also covered on several web sites in very, very basic transistor logic handbooks. Why do you propose beating that dead horse, Mr. Grizzard? snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
Thank you for the honorific, Mr. Mackey. I sincerely appreciate it. This is a special case. I waxed offensive in order to place you in the crosshairs. How comfortable are you when you're called on the spot in public with no basis for it? Mr. King does not believe the thread devolved into discussing coordination. (No, I meant devolved, not evolved.) Witness his response to Mr. Duehr. Yes, the squelch issue is well covered in manifold places. I know of at least three ways to implement an inverter, and given a moment or two I can think of several other ways to implement one that also translates levels and has hysteresis. Now, perhaps you can tell me how Groucho's naked contempt for the original questioner added to that discussion. de kg7yy -Original Message- From: JOHN MACKEY [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Dec 3, 2004 9:55 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks Mr. Grizzard- So now I ask YOU, are you normally this oblivious, or is this a special case? As you state below, the thread evolved into discussing coordination. The squelch sense issue was *WELL* addressed in recent threads here. It is also covered on several web sites in very, very basic transistor logic handbooks. Why do you propose beating that dead horse, Mr. Grizzard? Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
Mr Grizzard- You've gone to senseless babble. Get a life or borrow someone elses. Being from Sioux City, I've spent some time in Cedar Rapids know that town must have SOMETHING to offer you other than what you are (attempting) to do here. Mr King does not need you to speak for him, he can handle that himself. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 10:37:11 AM CST From: Robert Grizzard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks Thank you for the honorific, Mr. Mackey. I sincerely appreciate it. This is a special case. I waxed offensive in order to place you in the crosshairs. How comfortable are you when you're called on the spot in public with no basis for it? Mr. King does not believe the thread devolved into discussing coordination. (No, I meant devolved, not evolved.) Witness his response to Mr. Duehr. Yes, the squelch issue is well covered in manifold places. I know of at least three ways to implement an inverter, and given a moment or two I can think of several other ways to implement one that also translates levels and has hysteresis. Now, perhaps you can tell me how Groucho's naked contempt for the original questioner added to that discussion. de kg7yy -Original Message- From: JOHN MACKEY [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Dec 3, 2004 9:55 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks Mr. Grizzard- So now I ask YOU, are you normally this oblivious, or is this a special case? As you state below, the thread evolved into discussing coordination. The squelch sense issue was *WELL* addressed in recent threads here. It is also covered on several web sites in very, very basic transistor logic handbooks. Why do you propose beating that dead horse, Mr. Grizzard? Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
If that is meant to imply that old is bad, and newer is better, we should be talking about adding CDCSS (AKA DPL) to the repeaters, not CTCSS (AKA PL)! (or maybe even LTR as opposed to CTCSS OR CDCSS) But, it's a moot point when it was invented - it was not standard in ham rigs until the 90s. Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Nate - it's WORSE than than that!! CTCSS was introduced under the trademark name of Private Line by Motorola in the 1950's. It is FIFTY year old technology!! -- Original Message -- Received: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 07:38:52 PM CST From: Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] SNIP Art's opinion is correct in a lot of people's eyes -- CTCSS, a 1970's technology that's well-proven and works -- shouldn't be so hard to get hams to use 30 years after it was in fairly wide use in the commercial world. And older hams *are* typically the people too lazy to implement it, for all their talk of I remember when I built my own radio, SNIP Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
Tony has a great point! The issue with sera was a simple one, not so much that the old farts complained about the new PL encode/decode requirement. The issue at hand with sera is simple, coordinators throughout the U.S. have no authority to dictate repeater operations other than they conform to good engineering and good amateur practice. Regards, Barry --- Tony King - W4ZT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We all have occasion to suffer from diarrhea of the mouth and fortunately when spoken those words don't linger for long in the minds of most of those that hear them. Unfortunately when those same words are put in print they linger way beyond the half life of plutonium. I really couldn't care less how long you've been a ham or how old you are or whose cousin you married. It's careless and down right rude to respond the way the two gentlemen below did. We've seen more and more of this kind of response on this list and others lately and, without appearing thin skinned, I'm pretty tired of it. Gentlemen, if you can't offer sincere help or an opinion that's relevant or that doesn't reflect negatively on your upbringing, it might be better to leave it alone. 73, Tony W4ZT At 11:44 PM 11/30/2004, Neal Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry I cannot resist this one.. And you call yourself a Ham?...snip At 12:39 AM 12/2/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RE using CTCSS: Nobody said repeater owners were smart. The SERA group just rescinded their new rule of requiring CTCSS/DCS on all new repeater pairs because too many of the old farts complained. (most probably didn't know how to program a tone in their machines or radios.) (might have something to do with cousins marrying cousins) Art - KC7GF old fart since 42 __ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
Okay.. Everyone had to suffer through this crap on QRZ.COM and in other forums. I could comment on further on this. But... Can we give this a rest? Steve - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks Tony has a great point! The issue with sera was a simple one, not so much that the old farts complained about the new PL encode/decode requirement. The issue at hand with sera is simple, coordinators throughout the U.S. have no authority to dictate repeater operations other than they conform to good engineering and good amateur practice. Regards, Barry --- Tony King - W4ZT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We all have occasion to suffer from diarrhea of the mouth and fortunately when spoken those words don't linger for long in the minds of most of those that hear them. Unfortunately when those same words are put in print they linger way beyond the half life of plutonium. I really couldn't care less how long you've been a ham or how old you are or whose cousin you married. It's careless and down right rude to respond the way the two gentlemen below did. We've seen more and more of this kind of response on this list and others lately and, without appearing thin skinned, I'm pretty tired of it. Gentlemen, if you can't offer sincere help or an opinion that's relevant or that doesn't reflect negatively on your upbringing, it might be better to leave it alone. 73, Tony W4ZT At 11:44 PM 11/30/2004, Neal Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry I cannot resist this one.. And you call yourself a Ham?...snip At 12:39 AM 12/2/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RE using CTCSS: Nobody said repeater owners were smart. The SERA group just rescinded their new rule of requiring CTCSS/DCS on all new repeater pairs because too many of the old farts complained. (most probably didn't know how to program a tone in their machines or radios.) (might have something to do with cousins marrying cousins) Art - KC7GF old fart since 42 __ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page - Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
Uhhh... coordinators DO have the authority to set the terms for which they will grant (or deny) a coordination. It's the same as limiting the ERP, or antenna height. If you say the coordinator has no authority to require specifications, then what IS a coordination? Answer: It's a set of operating conditions which must be met in order to get along with other cochannel and adjacent channel operations. That INCLUDES requiring CTCSS/CDCSS. The FCC themselves have ruled in favor of repeaters operating CTCSS/CDCSS when all other factors are equal (both holding coordinations, operating within their coordinations, etc) when it comes to interference issues. Joe M. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The issue at hand with sera is simple, coordinators throughout the U.S. have no authority to dictate repeater operations other than they conform to good engineering and good amateur practice. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
Uhhh... coordinators DO have the authority to set the terms for whichthey will grant (or deny) a coordination.That is correct, they have the "authority" to set any terms that happen to please them, however, they have no authority, other than denial of "coordination", to prevent anyone from operating without being "coordinated".If you say the coordinator has no authority torequire specifications, then what IS a coordination? Answer: It's a setof operating conditions which must be met in order to get along withother cochannel and adjacent channel operations. That INCLUDES requiringCTCSS/CDCSS.Again, true, however, they have no authority to ENFORCE those requirements.Coordination only works because the participating parties VOLUNTEER to agree to the terms of the coordination as a means of reducing or eliminating interference. The FCC "suggests" the use of coordinating bodies because it takes the workload off of THEM !!However, it is the FCC who ultimately has AUTHORITY to decide and the power to ENFORCE those decisions concerning interference whether "coordination" is involved or not.The FCC themselves have ruled in favor of repeaters operatingCTCSS/CDCSS when all other factors are equal (both holdingcoordinations, operating within their coordinations, etc) when it comesto interference issues.See previous comment.Coordination works when (most) everyone wants to play nice, together. If EVERYONE wanted to get along, then "coordination" would be unnecessary.My nickel's worth, your mileage may vary. Kenneth Buley Bullitt County DES CD-2 Bullitt County Red Cross/Certified ECRVDriver/Operator BC-6 Bullitt County ARES\RACES Coordinator KY4DES Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
I'll agree with Tony .. An Amateur is considerate towards others, part of the Radio Amateurs Code I don't flaunt my license class towards anyone, or that I am persuing advanced interests in electronics. I have been in other Chat-BBSes that are purely BS with an arrogant person or 2. if the put down is someones upbringing then I say they are in the One Percenters club, I don't have time to run a flame thrower, and FYI, I always block senders who waste my time anyhow. 2 people have made my blocked senders list already. Happy Holidays !! Mark HolmanIsn't Radio Fun !! ?? - Original Message - From: Tony King - W4ZT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:43 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks We all have occasion to suffer from diarrhea of the mouth and fortunately when spoken those words don't linger for long in the minds of most of those that hear them. Unfortunately when those same words are put in print they linger way beyond the half life of plutonium.I really couldn't care less how long you've been a ham or how old you are or whose cousin you married. It's careless and down right rude to respond the way the two gentlemen below did. We've seen more and more of this kind of response on this list and others lately and, without appearing thin skinned, I'm pretty tired of it. Gentlemen, if you can't offer sincere help or an opinion that's relevant or that doesn't reflect negatively on your upbringing, it might be better to leave it alone.73, Tony W4ZTAt 11:44 PM 11/30/2004, Neal Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry I cannot resist this one..And you call yourself a Ham?...snipAt 12:39 AM 12/2/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RE using CTCSS:Nobody said repeater owners were smart. The SERA group just rescinded their new rule of requiring CTCSS/DCS on all new repeater pairs because too many of the old farts complained. (most probably didn't know how to program a tone in their machines or radios.) (might have something to do with cousins marrying cousins)Art - KC7GF"old fart since 42" Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] snide remarks
See below ... (please excuse me, Kevin) mch wrote: Buley, Kenneth L (GE Consumer Industrial) wrote: Uhhh... coordinators DO have the authority to set the terms for which they will grant (or deny) a coordination. That is correct, they have the authority to set any terms that happen to please them, however, they have no authority, other than denial of coordination, to prevent anyone from operating without being coordinated. I would agree with that. Should, however, someone operate CSQ without coordination, and cause interference to another repeater that is using CTCSS/CDCSS, the FCC would side with the repeater using means to reduce the interference (using CTCSS/CDCSS). And, if the other repeater is coordinated, it's an open and shut case - the uncoordinated repeater has to solve the interference. CFR 47, Part 97 - 97.205(c) (read in part) . the licensee of the non-coordinated repeater has the primary responsibility to resolve the interference. Neil - WA6KLA It's all about the effort made to reduce the interference. The FCC will always side with the ones who are making an effort. (all else being equal) If you say the coordinator has no authority to require specifications, then what IS a coordination? Answer: It's a set of operating conditions which must be met in order to get along with other cochannel and adjacent channel operations. That INCLUDES requiring CTCSS/CDCSS. Again, true, however, they have no authority to ENFORCE those requirements. Other than the fact that if someone is operating in violation of their coordination, it's the same as not being coordinated, and they have to resolve any interference. The FCC DOES ask the coordinators for a copy of the coordination when interference issues arise. The terms are set in black and white, and most (perhaps all?) coordinators specify that the coordination is null and void if the parameters are exceeded. Again, what is the purpose of coordination if you can do anything you want. Coordination only works because the participating parties VOLUNTEER to agree to the terms of the coordination as a means of reducing or eliminating interference. The FCC suggests the use of coordinating bodies because it takes the workload off of THEM !! However, it is the FCC who ultimately has AUTHORITY to decide and the power to ENFORCE those decisions concerning interference whether coordination is involved or not. The FCC 'suggests' the use of a coordinator? They clearly state that not using one puts all the burden of eliminating interference on the uncoordinated system. That is, to me, more than a suggestion. It's a strong recommendation and a warning of liability for not using one. Coordination works when (most) everyone wants to play nice, together. If EVERYONE wanted to get along, then coordination would be unnecessary. Even when everyone wants to play nice, coordination maintains an independant record of the 'rules'. Professional football players all want to play fair and not hurt anyone. Yet, they all have refs to police the game to ensure what they all want is done. Joe M. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
