Lol, I never even saw that post I've had Michael blocked for years because
that message with it's language is typical for him. He'd fit in perfectly on
3.910 around here, 14.313, cb radio, places like that. Talk about twisting
things around. I never mentioned irlp which is the best of the bunch if you
want to do anything that way, it's a decent repeater linking tool anyway but
that's all I'd use it for and again only linking area repeaters, and I never
said 2 meters wasn't real radio though with every repeater around here
having lowlife link on it it's getting close. For now it's just a band I
only use for public service events and rarely for anything else though I
carry an HT for emergencies. I much prefer 900 MHz though personally if I
want to talk local.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Colin McDonald" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 4:29 AM
Subject: Re: ham radio and the internet
> wow, starting to sound like 14.313 in here...good for entertainment value
> anyway hahahahahaha.
> I guess some people just don't like other's opinions on a given topic.
> Not to mention twisting the subject around to something it isn't.
> I never said that I didn't agree with ham radio utilizing the internet.
> All
> I said was that a program, specifically cq100 pretends it's radio and
> isn't.
> Is that not true? even the company who developed it agrees to that one
> publically.
> So I'm not saying anything that isn't true or already well known.
> In fact, I even said I don't have a problem with IRLP/echolink because
> it's
> RF related and therefore is radio.
> Ham radio is just that, radio, not computer pretending to be radio.
> Now if you interface a radio with a computer, well, that's still radio
> isn't
> it.
> Nothing wrong with digital modes, or any thing that uses a computer along
> with a radio, or uses computer software to assist in building antennas or
> whatever else you can think of.
> My issue is strictly with cq100 and any other program that pretends, and
> actually for some time mislead it's members into believing there was RF
> involved.
> I had a good friend call me up one time and tell me all about this great
> new
> computer program that used some kind of remote connection to HF radios to
> talk to other hams. Turns out it was cq100 and he was mislead.
> So, we can agree to disagree if you think cq100 is all great and
> wonderful,
> that's your ball of wax, it ain't mine, but that is what the hobby is all
> about, different things for many different people.
> But, I'm also allowed to have my opinion without being verbally abused I
> hope.
> I know this message was primarily aimed at John, but since I am agreeing
> with most of what he says,, with the exception of a few points, I feel the
> abuse is directed at me as well.
> If that's how you act on the radio when someone says something you don't
> agree with then wow, I'm glad I'm not around that neck of the woods.
> There is nothing wrong with calling a thing for what it is in my mind.
>
> The hobby will only truly die if there is narrow minded thinking and
> abusive
> responses to what others have to say.
> Anyway, I'm not going to beat this dead horse anymore because I've stated
> my
> points clearly and thoroughly. If they are just going to be completely
> misinterpreted and turn into false accusations of what i said then there
> is
> no use in furthering this little debate.
>
> 73
> Colin, V A6BKX
|
