FAC0392%UOFT01.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA (Len Brady) (10/29/85)
My pleas of several months back having been completely ignored, I take terminal in hand to write again. In my first message of this type, I implored the TVRipOff boys (and girl) to start their own info-net, to be called surveillance-net or eavesdrop-info, and to leave that inappropriate trash off of the HAM RADIO NET. Tonight, I had to delete messages dealing with cordless telephones being overheard by television sets, AM radios and CIA-home-built converters. For Pete's sake, that has nothing to do with HAM RADIO! If you eavesdroppers, peekers and snoopers have any interest in HAM RADIO, why don't you turn on your rigs and get on the air? If you have no interest in HAM RADIO, why don't you stop cluttering up the INFO-HAMS net? 73 to the hams reading this. Len KF8J
ptb@mitre-bedford.ARPA (10/29/85)
I agree with you, Len. Why dont we call it info-snoop or some such.... Seriously, Do we have any volunteers for someone to set up such a distribution list and segregate the traffic from info-hams? - Peter, WA1SNH
ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) (10/30/85)
Part of the problem is postings from the usenet side, I imagine. A lot of news reading software posts messages to all groups included in the original message, which actually may have had some relevance to amateur radio issues (and therefore info-hams and net.ham-radio) There was a net.tvro for a while, but it went away. Perhaps a new group (say, called mod.telecom.home-sat) could be created for tvro users If there is too much tvro traffic for this group, and we complain enough about it (to the right people), then there may be some relief. Accoring the the usenet 'rules', one criterion for creating a new group is sufficient volume in a current newsgroup to justify spinning it off into a separate one. -- - Ralph Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu (cmu-cs-c.arpa) Usenet: ralphw@mit-eddie.uucp Fidonet: Ralph Hyre at Fido #385 Pitt-Bull (or maybe Net 129, node 0) Snail Mail: don't bother -- - Ralph Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu (cmu-cs-c.arpa) Usenet: ralphw@mit-eddie.uucp Fidonet: Ralph Hyre at Fido #385 Pitt-Bull (or maybe Net 129, node 0) Snail Mail: don't bother
taylor.WBST@Xerox.ARPA (10/31/85)
I REALLY DONT SEE WHAT ALL THE COMMOTION IS ABOUT. IT'S SO EASY TO DELETE ITEMS OF DISINTEREST! PERSONALLY, I FIND MORE HAM RADIO RELATED ITEMS THAT I WANT TO DELETE ON SIGHT THAN THE OTHERS. 73 JIM (W2OZH)
withrow@tonto.DEC (Robert Withrow) (11/01/85)
The 1985 ARRL handbook devotes two chapters to just such things (Chapters 39 and 40)(Monitoring and interference). I for one do not believe that Ham Radio is just DX reports, Rig reports, etc, etc, etc... Personally, I have been deleting all of the recent haranging about Rig Reliability, since, being an experimenter, I generally build it and fix it myself. Should I propose that all of that stuff be removed to info-rig-harangue? No! Of course not. Many Hams I know are at least mildly interested in what is happening in communication in ALL parts of the EM spectrum.
brian@sdcsvax.UUCP (Brian Kantor) (11/02/85)
In article <2549@brl-tgr.ARPA> FAC0392%UOFT01.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA (Len Brady) writes: >My pleas of several months back having been completely ignored, I >take terminal in hand to write again. In my first message of this >type, I implored the TVRipOff boys (and girl) to start their own >info-net, to be called surveillance-net or eavesdrop-info, and to >leave that inappropriate trash off of the HAM RADIO NET. > >Tonight, I had to delete messages dealing with cordless telephones >being overheard by television sets, AM radios and CIA-home-built >converters. For Pete's sake, that has nothing to do with HAM RADIO! Depends on what you think of as ham radio. I rather enjoy reading about that sort of thing, as it has something technical to it. On the other hand, if I have to read (thank G*d for rn's kill files!) one more article about lower-than-30MHZ-conversations-with-some-unknown-little- forsaken-island-using-some-foreign-manufactured-rice-rocket-hooked-up- to-some-store-bought-heap-of-aluminum-for-a-grand-total-of-10-seconds-to exchange-signal-reports, I'll puke. Ham radio is a diverse hobby. I'm in it for the technical aspects, and to learn more about radio, television, digital, and other modes of communications. If I just want to talk to somebody, I'll use the telephone. Its cheaper and more reliable. So please! Tolerate the not-ham-radio-the-way-the-ARRL-invented-it traffic as well as the more traditional stuff here in ham-rado. Some of us like it! Oh yes, if you want to look for me on the air, I'll be there. I rarely get below 420MHz, though. Brian Kantor, WB6CYT decvax\ brian@ucsd.arpa akgua >--- sdcsvax --- brian ucbvax/ Kantor@Nosc
acardenas.ES@Xerox.ARPA (11/04/85)
I agree that HAMRADIO^ should be open to *ALL* information on the TOTAL spectrum. Scanners/antennas/dx/dishes/appliances/fcc/tv/cable/packet/vhf/uhf/hf/lw/power/questions/answers/networks... some topics you will like, some you won't. Resolve to be mature enough to respect the rights of others to learn and communicate. It is also important to note that not all members or visitors to the dl are hams. Appeals for information are made because users know that honest, no-sales-hype replies can be found here. I have yet to see a open question on communications go unanswered. While DX-reports are not my cup of whiskey, I find that my delete option works just fine. I do, however, object when a topic becomes a matter of personal flames and contests to see who can turn whom into black toast faster. I marvel and value the vast wealth of knowledge and insight here on the DL. I strongly object to restrictions upon members, communications or topics. 73's Tony Cardenas WA6IGJ