I see what you mean now.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt VanDeWalle" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: Taking the radio out of ham radio
>i don't think whoever joins, would lose it but if it aint a ham radio
> thing like echolink or irlp, or any other ham thing, don't claim it is i
> guess is my big thing, i mean there are chatrooms yes, but call it a
> chatroom or whatnot, but not a hamradio simulation or whatever. and yes,
> I'm all for hams having chat places but i guess just remember they are two
> different animals and one involves radios or a bunch of them, and one
> doesn't
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, hank smith wrote:
>
>> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:09:37 -0800
>> From: hank smith <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Taking the radio out of ham radio
>>
>> in that case I am not going to join
>> don't want to loose my license.
>> I just got my license in june of 2006 and don't care to loose it.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:11 AM
>> Subject: Re: Taking the radio out of ham radio
>>
>>
>>> because that has nothing to do with ham radio what so ever and in fact
>>> helps
>>> go against ham radio because of the way it's promoted. It should be 100%
>>> illegal for an internet chat room, to "require" a ham radio license and
>>> the
>>> insinuation that they are anything to do with ham radio puts them over
>>> the
>>> line, in my book, of fraud. Anyone who'd support such a thing obviously
>>> doesn't care at all about ham radio and what it's all about and
>>> shouldn't
>>> have a license, especially for those incredibly shameful lazy hams that
>>> will
>>> actually use that in place of HF privileges, and potentially the work to
>>> get
>>> a license to go on HF because the fact remains, it's nothing more than
>>> an
>>> internet chat room that fraudulently claims to be ham radio, simulated
>>> or
>>> not.
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "hank smith" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 1:13 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Taking the radio out of ham radio
>>>
>>>
>>>> why should they loose there license?
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "John Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:12 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Taking the radio out of ham radio
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> but this idiot that invented this doesn't have any RF involved at all
>>>>> so
>>>>> it's not radio in the least and anyone who thinks it is needs to look
>>>>> at
>>>>> what radio is. Personally, I think anyone who would sign up or
>>>>> anything
>>>>> with
>>>>> them should lose their license but that's JMO.
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Christopher Moore" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:38 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Taking the radio out of ham radio
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Buddy,
>>>>>> Since you signed up for the 90 day free trial, give us a report on
>>>>>> how
>>>>>> it work and whether the transceiver software is accessible. They
>>>>>> said
>>>>>> there were some shortcut keys to help the visually impaired.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The one nice thing about this product is you don't need to mess
>>>>>> around
>>>>>> with your router ports as you do with echolink. you can also make
>>>>>> qso's
>>>>>> with cw.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the purists might argue that anything that use voip is NOT
>>>>>> ham
>>>>>> radio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 73 Chris w1gm
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
|
