[digitalradio] ROS controversy
Andy, since you have chosen to moderate very specific posts to slant the discussion in favor of your own agenda, and that of several prominent other frequent posters, this reflector has become effectively useless to me. It is unfortunate that it comes to this. I know you do not care who you lose and that is quite alright. Certain members of your group have a specific agenda and it is not necessarily in the best interest of ham radio. The word characterization has been used recently by at least on of them. Yet this same individual seems to have no problem whatsoever using mis-characterizations himself to further his own agenda. This entire drama was primarily generated by Skip, and his own desire to be the authority, yet he consistently ignores certain facts that have been brought up by numerous other posters, including myself. You do not need to concern yourself with moderating my posts any further to protect your agenda. I am outta here 73 John KE5HAM
Re: [digitalradio] ROS controversy
Good riddance! 73 - Skip KH6TY John wrote: Andy, since you have chosen to moderate very specific posts to slant the discussion in favor of your own agenda, and that of several prominent other frequent posters, this reflector has become effectively useless to me. It is unfortunate that it comes to this. I know you do not care who you lose and that is quite alright. Certain members of your group have a specific agenda and it is not necessarily in the best interest of ham radio. The word characterization has been used recently by at least on of them. Yet this same individual seems to have no problem whatsoever using mis-characterizations himself to further his own agenda. This entire drama was primarily generated by Skip, and his own desire to be the authority, yet he consistently ignores certain facts that have been brought up by numerous other posters, including myself. You do not need to concern yourself with moderating my posts any further to protect your agenda. I am outta here 73 John KE5HAM
Re: [digitalradio] ROS controversy
Are you on a witch hunt, John? I did nothing but analyze ROS with FSK and present the findings to this group. On the basis of the ROS emissions, all other facts brought up here that you allude to are irrelevant. The signature of the ROS mode clearly fits the definition of Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum as originally documented by the author and easily found in literature or the Wikipedia. A technical description can always be rewritten to suit an agenda, as we can see, but the truth lies only in what is transmitted and how it is transmitted. That is all the FCC cares about, and we as hams are held responsible for emissions that comply with the FCC regulations, whether or not we like them. The authority is not myself, but the FCC regulations as they currently stand. If you don't like them, then petition to have them changed instead of trying to blame me instead of the author, who correctly described ROS as FHSS at the outset, which mode's emission signature clearly shows is true: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/compare.zip 73 - Skip KH6TY John wrote: Andy, since you have chosen to moderate very specific posts to slant the discussion in favor of your own agenda, and that of several prominent other frequent posters, this reflector has become effectively useless to me. It is unfortunate that it comes to this. I know you do not care who you lose and that is quite alright. Certain members of your group have a specific agenda and it is not necessarily in the best interest of ham radio. The word characterization has been used recently by at least on of them. Yet this same individual seems to have no problem whatsoever using mis-characterizations himself to further his own agenda. This entire drama was primarily generated by Skip, and his own desire to be the authority, yet he consistently ignores certain facts that have been brought up by numerous other posters, including myself. You do not need to concern yourself with moderating my posts any further to protect your agenda. I am outta here 73 John KE5HAM
