While there are many people on the Winlink group, like most groups, only a few people actually participate. So it is not more than a few dozens of people talking over a span of time (not hundreds).
If anyone takes a look at the more detailed messages on the WL2Kemcomm yahoogroup, they will see that these comments below are directed at those who have any disagreements with WL2K. Of the sample responses, about half were directed at other hams. They are not taken out of context in terms of seeing the *attitude* of the group. When I first joined the group, initially to get more details and a clear understanding, I was appalled by Steve's condescension to digital keyboard modes with his message #458: "Those people on the discussion groups such as EHam, etc, are lead by the PSK "cutesy" mode crowd,..." At that moment I knew clearly there was a serious attitude problem. And even took him to task at that point. >From what I have seen, in every single case that anyone has questioned anything, they have take considerable heat. Most people won't put up with that for long. And the majority takes notice of that. Anyone reading the archives can make up their own minds as to whether the WL2K folks are supportive of questions about the system. Steve is correct that intially I was mostly concerned how WL2K would work in our local area. And we have a very different terrain issue here than other areas. Some of their ideas would not work here at all but they insisted that they have "the way." The more I looked into the WL2K system, the more I began to realize there are some design limitations that I did not see at first. I am not saying it is a bad system, but it is not quite as good as it looked at first blush. It still has lots of good features but you might want to look at these carefully before spending a lot of limited resources. I was then asked to serve as a member of the Wisconsin ARES/RACES Task Force looking into Winlink 2000. We are charged at this time with coming up with a recommendation by the fall. Asking questions that other task force members have, and I have, seemed like a reasonable way to gather the information and make an informed recommendation. I spent many hours looking over the promotional information and such but you always have a few questions. They have made it clear that no one can possibly understand how WL2K works unless that individual spends considerable time and expense to actually operate the various modes and parts of the system. This is something they have stressed over and over. "Regarding the Winlink system, the only opinions of value are from the people who actually use it." and Message 3817 "It is a fool that criticizes the taste of a meal while still reading the menu." Any thinking person knows that this is utter nonsense. People with an inquiring mind can figure out how the system works, what the weaknesses are, and where it can or can not fit into their specific emergency communications needs. And it is also very helpful to talk to others using the system in different capacities, and I and others on our task force have. In fact, we have used several Telpacs with Paclink AGW, we have a new ePMBO in Milwaukee that is being tested, I have worked with SCAMP testing, our state EOC has an SCS modem etc. etc. But we are repeatedly told that we do not know anything about the system because we have not used it. Is this reasonable? I don't think it is. When I talked to Steve on the phone, he wanted me to bypass the task force and get to our SEC to convince him to do it ... now! I tried to explain that we were doing our best to make a fair and impartial judgement of the WL2K system as we were charged to do. He seemed not to comprehend this chain of command and why we would even do this. Further contact on the WL2Kemcomm group became so contentious that I stopped asking questions openly to the group (such as the problems with reliability) and contacted Steve directly via e-mail. And what did he do? He then sent a return CC: to many of the top leadership in our state! Completely bypassed the task force. I rather doubt that this was done out of some kind of accident. I don't show any CC: in my message to him. So now I feel very hesitant to trust him to act properly. If we use the same logic as the WL2K folks and accept that the only opinions of value are from people who use it, then how can the ARRL Board make an informed decision? All they can do is make the best call they can based on the information they are given. Considering that they are getting their information from a committee that was heavily weighted with the owners of Winlink 2000, a reasonable person would say that things are a bit one-sided. 73, Rick, KV9U -----Original Message----- From: Steve Waterman, k4cjx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:51 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team Rick, This is from the WL2KEmComm reflector where over 700 people are talking. These statements are really taken out of context and come from a myriad of people, but if the rest of the messages are read, they are mostly (not all) responding to your comments about why not to deploy or recommend WL2K in your small area. As moderator of this group, the only restriction on format is to not push personal attacks on anyone. I went back and looked at some of these, and I think a lot of this is due to your advising folks about how to deploy the system when you have never used it other than to beta test SCAMP. So, when you instruct others about EmComm deployments, they come back with such statements. Nice touch, however. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just so folks understand that the Winlink 2000 group very much minds ... ANY > ... comments that suggest anything could possibly be wrong with their > system. Here is only a sample of some of the comments made towards me and > others in recent months. Remember, I am a beta tester for SCAMP, and have > clearly said that I support much of the WL2K system but have some concerns: > > - - - - - > > "Folks, please, no further justification or defense threads. Let us > return to the topic. Rick has made it very plain he is not interested in > what we have to say. He does not seem to know what he wants, except > whatever it is, it is not WL2K." > > "Using Winlink .... It is for ham to ham digital > messaging to replace the NTS/NTSD" > > "Rick, if you have questions about deployment, then bring them on. But > stop criticizing the system." > > "Regarding the Winlink system, the only opinions of value > are from the people who actually use it." > > "Attack' includes making uninformed, baseless critical statements. Such > as your comments about stress testing WL2K. > > I (and many others) get really, really tired of this. It got old long > ago. > > Thank you for your perspective. Your thoughts and suggestions noted. > Please come back when you would like some help with planning your > deployment, have some specific technical issues, share some field > experiences, review some nifty new hardware, or some such." > > "Buy the SCS PTCIIE and get with the modern program." > > "Based upon the work of a board appointed > committee, the board has recommended the use of the Winlink 2000 system for > ARES. As an appointed leader in the ARES, one of my responsibilities is to > support the board policy, even if I personally disagree with it. > > It really is as simple as that. Had the board recommended RTTY on DOS or > MT63 on the Linux OS, then I would be recommending everyone use that > combination." > > "For example, you seem to want an RF only solution, no matter that it > would be slower and inferior in many ways. I also speak of those who > insist voice is good enough, or those clinging to classic packet, or > those clinging to the old, discontinued NTS model. Or thinking there is > a better way than WL2K. Those without real experience." > > "n addition, I am concerned > that your group seems to be ignoring the ARRL standards and all of the > hard work of so many. Why try to go it alone? What gives you the notion > you know better? Accept the ARRL direction, embrace WL2K and start your > deployment. Now." > > "But this is the way the ARRL and ARES is going. I hear that > MARS is not far behind*. Again, why try to buck the tide?" > > "I am also troubled by your desire to strike out on your own. I think > 'most of us' are very much on board with the WL2K system. Only a tiny, > tiny minority want to cling to old ways that have been repeatedly proved > to be ineffective, undesirable, or worse. Choosing a 'system' that > 'makes sense' to only you tends to ignore the knowledge and experience > of many, many wise folks. And, forgive me, but that is a rather naive > approach. The wise thinker knows it is sometimes necessary to put aside > personal druthers and embrace other ideas even when one does not agree." > > > > ----- > With these kinds of comments, reasonable people start to get very uneasy > about a system that should sell itself. I am not as supportive of WL2K as I > initially was after seeing what I consider unnecessary arrogance. What is > there to hide? Why shut down such discussions by intimidation or asking that > these things not be discussed. > > Again, the WL2K team needs to make a change (probably a big change) in the > way they approach criticism, critiquing, concerns about the flaws in the > system, etc. or expect resistance from folks who may have been supportive > but who are not as robotic as some of the comments above. (In some comments > above just insert "The Borg" at the appropriate point). There are a lot of > thinking people in the ham community. And there are other issues (security, > etc.) that have not even been addressed yet. > > Rick, KV9U -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005 The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> 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/
