By this argument, I would like to make the case that autopatch was
anti-radio -- the telephone line was doing most of the work. It doesn't
seem like it particularly damaged amateur radio, though. The biggest
threat that I see to ham radio is not looking at new opportunities and
technologies with an open mind.
As I stated before, I personally have little interest in playing with Echo
Link. Probably that has to do with being stuck behind a computer for 40 to
45 hours a week at work, as much as anything. But, I would defend the
right of those who are interested in it to pursue it, and I'll be happy to
talk to anyone who wishes to converse with me through an Echo Link connection.
If you are so worried about computers replacing amateur radio, what are you
doing jawing on this list? Turn on the radio and start making QSOs! Or,
could it be that not every form of human communication needs to involve a
radio at both ends?
73, de Lou K2LKK
At 12:07 PM 10/28/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>I happen to agree with you insofar as PC-to-PC and to an extent PC-to-
>radio connctions, but where there's radio at both ends, I don't see
>what the difference is between Echolink (or IRLP or Asterisk or ...)
>and a system linked via, say, telephone interconnects or even long
>haul RF links. Where there's a radio at both ends, what's the
>objection, specifically? I also agree that making contacts through
>such a system isn't the same as, say, working a pileup on 20, but no
>award I know of seriously counts such contacts anyway. But such awards
>don't count contacts via wide area linked systems, either.
>On Oct 28, 2008, at 10:50 AM, John Miller wrote:
>
> > As I see it, it's not radio, it's anti radio, and is absolutely
> > murdering
> > ham radio. I'll either be actually on the air, or doing something
> > else but I
> > didn't work so hard to get my license to use the computer to make my
> > contacts for me because I'm too lazy to setup a station and work for
> > the
> > contacts. I had a simplex link up for a while but it was a couple
> > statements
> > I heard on it that made me wake up and realize just how bad echolink
> > is
> > hurting things and it was then that I pulled it down for good. I
> > suppose if
> > a sponsoring group wants it on 1 of my repeaters, I may consider it
> > but I
> > won't be using it and probably won't put it on at all.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Buddy Brannan" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:59 AM
> > Subject: Re: Introduction
> >
> >
> >> On Oct 28, 2008, at 9:04 AM, John Miller wrote:
> >>
> >>> My CW is very slow, I much prefer phone, and would be absolutely
> >>> ashamed to
> >>> be on echolink
> >>
> >> Well....there's one great way to improve that cw speed :) And as for
> >> Echolink, why not use it? I mean--you *are* allowed to connect radios
> >> to it, y'know, so it really *is* radio, except when it isn't.
>
>--
>Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
>Phone: (814) 746-4127 or 888-75-BUDDY
>Create your own economic stimulus package:
>http://www.powermall.info
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG.
>Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1759 - Release Date: 10/31/2008
>4:10 PM
Louis Kim Kline
A.R.S. K2LKK
Home e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Work e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Work Telephone: (585) 697-5740
|
