: 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
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
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
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
.
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
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
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
: [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
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
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
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
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
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
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
, 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
, 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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
