Dave Bernstein wrote: > *** more AA6YQ comments
<SNIP> > *** Then why did you bring up the point that PMBOs can detect ongoing > QSOs in Pactor? If you weren't suggesting this as a solution, then > what was your intention? I was merely describing a fact, not suggesting anything as you so quickly imagined. If you own one PTC, you could have told that before I did, instead of making people believe, by omission, that PMBO's operate with no activity detection at all. <SNIP> > *** Then let me help you see it, Jose: WinLink is based on the > assumption that the remote initiator can reliably verify that the > frequency is clear before activating a PMBO. Yes, the same assumption made for the previously existent RTTY mailboxes, APLINK, etc. > This assumption can only be true if there is no hidden transmitter effect. This is the one you cooked up, seemingly, in a late reduction to absurd scheme. You have been very convincing, indeed. <SNIP> > OK. I understand you will not come forward with a better SCAMP. > > *** Actually, Jose, I recruited Bob N4HY and Peter G3PLX to work with > me on developing a soundcard-based protocol that would replace Pactor > as the transport for Winlink. But the WinLink guys made it clear that > they would never use it, so we stopped. Very capable persons indeed. Why then did your quest for the poor guys access to improved digital communications vanish so easily? Anyway, thanks for answering my questions. So far, as all can see, after a lot of words, the situation remains exactly the same, and I foresee no real solutions this way. It is a pity that the increasingly contorted exchange has just been a loss of time. Jose, CO2JA __________________________________________ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
