Re: "But you and others already have you mind made up with this anti
wide and pactor attitude"
I am neither opposed to wide modes, nor opposed to Pactor. I operate
RTTY frequently, and Pactor on occasion.
You have made this allegation before, John. The first time, I
privately challenged you to cite any post here or anywhere else
where I opposed wide mode or Pactor operation. You (grudgingly)
acknowledged the absence of any such statement from me. Now you're
repeating allegations that you know are false.
Why would you do that?
For the record, my opposition is to automatic stations that transmit
without listening to ensure a clear frequency. This opposition is
entirely independent of bandwidth or mode.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dave I could talk till I was blue in the face about ready
> to drop dead. But you and others already have you mind
> made up with this anti wide and pactor attitude.
>
> I nor anyone else could say a thing that would please
> you.
>
> Lets try the guy 150 miles from you well within your
> ring of silence (you can't copy each other if you had to)
> listens to the frenquncy (unable to ask if the frequency
> is in use on every mode known to man) hears nothing.
> brings up the auto station and in doing so QRM's a QSO
> on the same frequency that he did not hear.
>
> Now as I see it that is not the fault of the auto station.
> But I know you are going to say that the auto station
> *should* be able to tell if it was in use. And that is getting
> real old with me.
>
>
>
>
> At 06:47 PM 2/20/06, you wrote:
> >Yes, lots of talk, but no description of an actual scenario that
> >substantiates that talk.
> >
> >The explanation, I believe, is that there is no such scenario. If
you
> >disagree, describe the scenario.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Dave, AA6YQ
> >
> >
> >
> >--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <w0jab@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This has been talked about by many
> > > Me for one.
> > >
> > > At 05:32 PM 2/20/06, you wrote:
> > > >I have never seen you or any one else here describe a
scenario in
> > > >which someone already in QSO on a frequency is QRM'd by an
automatic
> > > >station, and the fault doesn't lie with the automatic station.
> > > >
> > > >If you can describe such a scenario, please do so.
> > > >
> > > > 73,
> > > >
> > > > Dave, AA6YQ
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
> >
> >Other areas of interest:
> >
> >The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
> >DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy
discussion)
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
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/
