Oh ja... someone raises a supposed illegality, and Jose changed the discription BECAUSE of that SUPPOSED illegaly. And he is to blame... I think all of us are to blaim for this flaming thread. No one excluded.
So let's continue betatesting since we do not know if it illegal or not, in the through ham spirit. We enjoy "experiments" as HAM's by definition of the 'ham spirit', isn't it? So let's leave the history of this "debate" to HAM radio historians, and await their official publication HI. Marc --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY <kh...@...> wrote: > > I really don't think there any "ROS haters". ROS is a mode that is fun > to use and works well. There may be some who complain that it interferes > with the NCDXF beacon network, but the suggested frequency was then > moved upward, in the true spirit of cooperation. > > However, there is a misconception about those whose motives are only to > obey the regulations they MUST live under, and the understandable need > to clarify what is legal or not, so they do not risk penalties or > citations for illegal operation. > > The "problem" was created by the author himself by first posting a seven > page document purportedly claiming it was FHSS (and in no uncertain > terms!), and then totally revising the description to say it is > "actually" FSK144 (at the suggestion of someone who said that would make > it legal somehow). It was the author that first characterized that > "anyone who is not with me is against me" and that anyone even > questioning the legality of ROS should be banned ( such as myself) or > punished ( locked out of using the mode by being singled out and > included in a "non grata list"). > > I do feel sympathy for Jose, and appreciation for his very fine work, > but it was HIS mistake in the beginning and continuing to make more > mistakes that made it even worse that has led to the current situation. > He is not being banned by Andy, only not actively promoted, which I > think is a totally appropriate and diplomatic response to the banning of > others. Especially in an open forum and world of amateur radio, banning > or punishing anyone for their stated opinions is simply unacceptable. > > An apology from Jose might result in forgiveness from those harmed and > we could then can get on with the job of either using the mode, or being > sure we use it in accordance with our own administrations, or petition > for use under whatever limitations are necessary to accomodate other > users of the same bands in a cooperative manner. > > 73 - Skip KH6TY > > > > > pd4u_dares wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, "Toby Burnett" <ruffdog@> > > <..> But to be honest I don'' t think I shall bother too now as there > > seems much to much grief happening from this. > > > Like I say, it seemed a fair experimental mode but it is wider than <..> > > > It'd be nice to see something other than ROS comments on the digi > > reflector > > > group. For a change. > > > > > > > Yeah let's stop our support for ROS on this group as well as on K3UK's > > sked page... Let us created two camps: the ROS haters and the ROS > > lovers...the good guys and the bad guys, and all in the name of the > > ham radio spirit of course!! > > > > :-O > > > > Marc, PD4U > > > > >
