QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/infoham/941154.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 27.0 KB

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 94 00:00:37 PDT
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: List
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #1154
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Tue, 25 Oct 94       Volume 94 : Issue 1154

Today's Topics:
               anyone know anything about hallicrafters
                      Century Club net questions
                        Email callsign servers
                       FT757 are they any good?
                 Guess What I did Saturday! (3 msgs)
                          ham radio material
                JOTA '94 and Intentional Interference
                          Logging systems???
                      Motorola Amateur Group????
            NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins (2 msgs)
                PGP-Signatur in PACKET RADIO (2 msgs)
                       Touch Tone Paging (DTSS)
              Wayne Green, unfailing clear thinker? NOT!

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Info-Hams Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/info-hams".

We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party.  Your mileage may vary.  So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 94 11:17:14 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: anyone know anything about hallicrafters

IL>   800-807-6146

IL>Note:  You may have to be a ham to appreciate that phone number...

I'm almost a ham, and I don't get it... Is it something with the letters
that use 807 6146??
-Evan Platt
Southern Region Director
Bay Area Fire Photographers Association
Internet:[e-mail]

--
---- Sent by: InfoDude Communications,
              [phone]
              Palo Alto, Ca.
              Via Major Gateway/Internet

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 1994 19:35:44 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Scott Turner)
Subject: Century Club net questions

KU9C ([e-mail]) wrote:

: I believe the century club net (3.905 +/-...seems last time i heard them
: they were at 3.903) is a controlled WAS net.  They also take DX check=ins,
: but I don't recall whether the DX can be worked or just the DX can work
: the US stations.

3.9035 - early net; 3.9025 - late net (now if someone wants to explain
why the 3905 Century Club is actually on 3902.5 to 3903.5... :-)

Any station can work any other station on the net, DX or not.  DX is
given no preference, and under normal net conditions has to wait its
turn just like any other station.  DX stations may not even get the most
calls if someone like Alaska, Hawaii or Rhode Island are on :-)  It is,
after all, basically a WAS net.

Based on my very limited experience (a handful of checkins last winter),
it is generally a very well run net but it does tend to drag, especially
during initial checkins on a night with good propagation.  It can take
an hour or more from the net starting time until stations get to start
making calls.

Be prepared.  As a newcomer, you'll likely get a lot of calls on your
first checkin.  The net regulars seem to love fresh calls!


Scott Turner  KG0MR  [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 94 12:02:51 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Email callsign servers

IA>I have rec'd a few e-mails from people who have tried to use the e-mail
IA>call server mentioned above. Seems there must be something wrong with it
IA>as it always(?) returns "not found". Sorry I don't have any more info on
IA>the service.

Maybe it's for COMMERCIAL calls? (police, etc?) I tried a ham call I
KNOW exists, and got the same message.

-Evan Platt
Southern Region Director
Bay Area Fire Photographers Association
Internet:[e-mail]

--
---- Sent by: InfoDude Communications,
              [phone]
              Palo Alto, Ca.
              Via Major Gateway/Internet

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 1994 19:37:26 GMT
From: [e-mail] (WB7ASR)
Subject: FT757 are they any good?

I used one on Field Day and found that it had very poor dynamic range.
Strong signals overload the IF circuit. I don't know if they fixed
the problem in the newer GT series.


In article <38glsj$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Richard Karlquist) writes:
> In article <387rmc$[e-mail]>,
> Simon Brown <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >I am interested in buying an FT757 HF rig.   I would be interested if
> >anyone has had any problems with this rig.   As far as I know it is OK.
> >
> >Thanks in advance
> >
> >Simon
> >
> >ps.   You can email me [e-mail] as not to fill up the
> >newsgroup!!
> >
> >
> >--
> >        Zikzak public access UNIX, Melbourne, Australia.
>
> It's an inexpensive rig where you get what you pay for.  And what you
> get is a mediocre design with lots of annoying little problems.  The
> +12V connector radiates copious amounts of RF.  The break in CW doesn't
> work very well.  You can't use an external keyer unless you build a
> "weight increaser" circuit to go between it and the rig.  There is insufficient
> IF gain, especially on CW.  This forces you to use the RF amplifier a lot.
> The cooling fan "keys" in unison with your CW dots and dashes because it's
> sense circuit is voltage sensitive and your +12V is going to vary with
> key up/key down.  The squelch for 10 M FM is lousy.  The remote tuning on the
> microphone is poorly designed.  You can't turn the power down to run less
> than 100 watts reliably; its about 5 degrees from 0 to 100 watts.  The
> filters are nothing to write home about.  You can't run AMTOR because the
> transmit receive switching is too slow.  Etc, Etc. Etc.
>
> If you just want a simple ragchewing rig that is small and cheap, then
> you are probably OK, though.
>
> Rick N6RK
> [e-mail]
>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 10:52:46 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Scott Darragh)
Subject: Guess What I did Saturday!

    .... . -.--  ..  .--. .- ... ... . -.. -- -.--  -.-. --- -.. . - ....
.. ...  .-- . . -.- . -. -.. .-.-.-  ..  . ...- . -.  .... .- -..  -- -.--
..-. .. .-. ... -  -.-. --- -. - .- -.-. - .-.-.-  -.-- --- ..-  - .... ---
..-
--. -  .. .-- .- -. - . -..  .-  .-. .- -.. .. ---  -... . ..-. --- .-. .
.... --- .--  -.-- --- ..-  - .... .. -. -.-  ..  ..-. . . .-..  -. --- .--
.-.-.-  ..  --. --- -  -- -.--  ..-. .. .-. ... -  -.-. --- -. - .- -.-. -
..-. .-. --- --  -.-. .- .-.. .-.. .. -. --.  -.-.--.-  .-.-.-   ..  --.
..- .
... ...  ..  .-- .- ... -. -  -... .- ... .... ..-. ..- .-.. .-.-.-  ..  .-
--
- --- - .- .-.. .-.. -.--  .-.. --- --- -.- .. -. --.  ..-. --- .-. .--
.- .-. -..  - ---  --. . - - .. -. --.  .-  -.-. .--  .-. .- -.. .. ---
.-.-.-
..

... -.-. --- - -


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott R. Darragh    (KE6MGW)           On Planet Reebok, you punish their
3535 Garrett Dr                            rusher, stick the receivers,
Sant Clara, Ca 95054                    intimidate their quarterback, and

(408)-526-7173                       walk off the field with the
cheerleaders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 1994 17:58:00 GMT
From: [e-mail] (David Jenkins)
Subject: Guess What I did Saturday!

In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Scott Darragh) writes:
>    .... . -.--  ..  .--. .- ... ... . -.. -- -.--  -.-. --- -.. . - ....
>... ...  .-- . . -.- . -. -.. .-.-.-  ..  . ...- . -.  .... .- -..  -- -.--
>...-. .. .-. ... -  -.-. --- -. - .- -.-. - .-.-.-  -.-- --- ..-  - .... ---
>...-
>--. -  .. .-- .- -. - . -..  .-  .-. .- -.. .. ---  -... . ..-. --- .-. .


[more coded stuff clipped]

I think it's interesting that I can't read a word of this, even though I
am actively using code (albeit slowly, to be truthful about it).  Oh, I
guess I could read the above if I tediously deciphered each character,
but what seeing this message has really brought home to me  is
the extent to which I've come to depend on the *sound* to
signify the meaning of the symbol--not the character's visual
representation, even though I tend to think in terms of "dots" and
"dashes".

Scott:  did you learn code by seeing it in the dot-dash form?  The
resources I've used to learn code have all steered clear of *any* visual
presentation of the characters.

David F. Jenkins
Decision and Information Sciences
University of Houston
KC5JRR

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 1994 19:02:55 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Ken A. Nishimura)
Subject: Guess What I did Saturday!

In article <[e-mail]>,
Scott Darragh <[e-mail]> wrote:
 >    .... . -.--  ..  .--. .- ... ... . -.. -- -.--  -.-. --- -.. . - ....
 Hey I passed my code th
 >.. ...  .-- . . -.- . -. -.. .-.-.-  ..  . ...- . -.  .... .- -..  -- -.--
 is weekend. i even had my
 >..-. .. .-. ... -  -.-. --- -. - .- -.-. - .-.-.-  -.-- --- ..-  - .... ---
 first contact. you tho
 >..-
 u
 >--. -  .. .-- .- -. - . -..  .-  .-. .- -.. .. ---  -... . ..-. --- .-. .
 gt I wanted a radio before
 >.... --- .--  -.-- --- ..-  - .... .. -. -.-  ..  ..-. . . .-..  -. --- .--
 how you think I feel now
 >.-.-.-  ..  --. --- -  -- -.--  ..-. .. .-. ... -  -.-. --- -. - .- -.-. -
 . I got my first code act
 >..-. .-. --- --  -.-. .- .-.. .-.. .. -. --.  -.-.--.-  .-.-.-   ..  --.
 from calling CQ.  I g
 >..- .
 ue
 >... ...  ..  .-- .- ... -. -  -... .- ... .... ..-. ..- .-.. .-.-.-  ..  .-
 ss I wasnt bashful.  I a
 >--
 m
 >- --- - .- .-.. .-.. -.--  .-.. --- --- -.- .. -. --.  ..-. --- .-. .--
 totally looking forw
 >.- .-. -..  - ---  --. . - - .. -. --.  .-  -.-. .--  .-. .- -.. .. ---
 ard to getting a cw radio
 >.-.-.-
 .
 >..
 I
 >
 >... -.-. --- - -
 scott
 >
 >
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Scott R. Darragh    (KE6MGW)           On Planet Reebok, you punish their
>3535 Garrett Dr                            rusher, stick the receivers,
>Sant Clara, Ca 95054                    intimidate their quarterback, and
>
>(408)-526-7173                       walk off the field with the
>cheerleaders.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congratulations Scott on your first CW contact.  Now shame on you
for inducing people to wade through/learn code by reading the dots and
dashes....

                        ==Ken

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 94 05:08:01 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Arthur W. Burgess)
Subject: ham radio material

list

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 94 11:26:54 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Joe Landis - Systems & Network Mgr)
Subject: JOTA '94 and Intentional Interference

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Neil Gould) writes:
> Jamboree-on-the-air is a great event to promote amateur radio
> to Boy and Girl Scouts all over the world.  I am sure the 99.9%
> of all Hams fully support this effort.  I heard and worked
> several stations that opened their stations to show ham radio
> to the kids and leaders.  I enjoy seeing the reactions of the kids
> as they talk to others around the country.
>
> BUT... It was very embarassing to have intentional interference
> by a very very SICK person who made unacceptable comments
> on the air so that my boys and their leaders could hear them.
> I apologized and ignored him the best I could, but it still bothered
> me a great deal.  I know there is nothing I can do about it now, but
> I just wanted to express my disappointment in this one person.
>
> If anyone knows anyway to deal with this problem, it would be
> appreciated.  Obviousely, he never identified himself.
>
> Again, though, thanks to all those hams who did help out.

I was tuning around the JOTA freqs last weekend and heard some OF on 40 meters
whining about the !@#$% scouts, and how he flipped on his amp, and who did they
think they were, etc, ad nauseum... The 40 M JOTA freq must have been on his
daily hemhorroid (sp?) discussion roundtable or something. Of course he
couldn't move... It took a lot of lip biting here on my end to keep my mouth
shut. But, I think that is the best thing to do. These guys seem to thrive on
getting into arguments on the air and I won't feed them. It's sad. You'd think
they would cut the kids a break.

I think the JOTA idea is great. I don't ever remember doing this when I was a
scout. I think I probably would have gotten licensed much earlier if I had.
Instead, I lost interest and didn't pick it up again til I was 38.

Joe - AA3GN
--
Joe Landis - Systems and Network Manager - North American Drager - Telford, PA
[e-mail] - Ax25: AA3GN@WA3TSW.#EPA.PA.USA.NOAM - ampr: [44.80.8.153]

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 94 10:20:58 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Joe Landis - Systems & Network Mgr)
Subject: Logging systems???

In article <384obd$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Todd Little) writes:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joe Landis - Systems & Network Mgr) writes:
> |>Anybody have any opinions on general purpose logging programs?
> |>
[stuff I wrote deleted...]
>
> I use Logic for Windows.  It automatically controls and logs information
> from my FT-767 (and I'm fairly certain it handles the entire Yaesu line,
> to the extent available by each rig.)  It provides:

[Good description of Logic for Windows deleted]

Thanks Todd, This sounds exactly like what I want!
So... how can I get in touch with PDA? Internet? Got a phone number?
--
Joe Landis - Systems and Network Manager - North American Drager - Telford, PA
[e-mail] - Ax25: AA3GN@WA3TSW.#EPA.PA.USA.NOAM - ampr: [44.80.8.153]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 94 10:28:20 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Motorola Amateur Group????

IJ>I am trying to find out if there is such a thing as a Motorola User Group
IJ>-- you know, hams who use Motorola gear, etc...

IJ>If you can shed light on this for me, I would very much apprecitate it.
IJ>Thanks.

I didn't think Motorola made HAM gear??? (So I heard..)

-Evan Platt
Southern Region Director
Bay Area Fire Photographers Association
Internet:[e-mail]

--
---- Sent by: InfoDude Communications,
              [phone]
              Palo Alto, Ca.
              Via Major Gateway/Internet

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 94 09:14:38 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Tuck Miller)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

Maybe, someone from the ARRL ca get ahold of the powers to be at the FCC,
and finally get a clarification on this subject.
  I myself, see nothing wrong with discussing anything on packet radio,
that you would discuss on normal 2 meter freqs. As long as the message
content is legal, and not against any fcc regs. Why can't we discuss any
topiuc we wish.

ARRL folks!!! Please get this clarified!!

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 20:58:35 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Steve Wolf)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

The point is being missed.  Are packet bulletins addressed to either
"all" or a like form of "all" (MUSIC, SEWING, CRAFTS, NAFTA, etc.)
indeed informational bulletins?

Is there a difference between:

1.  My tuning in a W1AW transmission and listening to an ARRL bulletin.
2.  My tuning in a packet BBS station and reading an ARRL bulletin.

I submit that both forms of the bulletin are the same.  I end up with
identical information.  In both cases, the bulletin is an
"informational bulletin".  In both cases, the transmission is
one-way.  There is not an exchange between two stations.  The form
that the data takes is irrelevant.  The mode upon which the data is
transferred is again irrelevant.

Then, what is the difference between:

1.  My tuning in a packet BBS and reading an ARRL bulletin.
2.  My tuning in a packet BBS and reading a bulletin about cooking.

I again submit that both forms of bulletin are identical.  Even a
request (buried in the recipe) from a cook for more cooks to respond
is nothing but a "CQ" and, again, a one-way flow of information.

If there is no difference, could W1AW begin harassing Clinton about
his viewpoints on foreign trade (in their bulletins)?  Could they
discuss cooking or sewing?  We must agree that the rules would
prohibit such bulletins.

Because we use error correction causing a "connect" to be required does
not change the fact that a packet radio bulletin is a one way transmission.
It is not addressed to a ham.  It is addressed to the ham community,
to the general public, just like the W1AW bulletins.  The changing of
the definition of a "bulletin" due to the medium upon which it is
transferred is not proper.

The OO is then correct.  Packet bulletins are informational bulletins
and subject to the restrictions of that definition.  Information
outside of that which is of direct interest to the amateur service is
not allowed.

I would be pleased to see the FCC interact with the amateur service
by way of NALs.  Our ability to self police our service would be
greatly facilitated by occasional guidance.

Please, if you are going to reply, don't do a line-by-line rebuttal.
Write something original.  You also might note that the thread deals
with BULLETINS, not QSOs.

73,
Steve
        Internet:     [e-mail]
          Packet:     no8m@no8m.#neoh.oh.usa.na

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 16:03:49 UNDEFINED
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Jessup)
Subject: PGP-Signatur in PACKET RADIO

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:


>IT>I just think about the possibilty of the PGP-Encryption-program
>IT>in amateur radio:

>IT>A ham is only allowed to use "open speech". But signing a message
>IT>with the program PGP might be ok.

>IT>It could reduce the possibility of pirates in amateur radio using
>IT>others call sign to work in Packet Radio.

>IT>Any comments are welcome

>I thought your call sign had to be aired in plain english, just like
>your transmission? If I'm not making any sense, lemme know..
>BTW: I'm a studying ham, and hope to take the No code tech VERY soon..

Yes, you DO have to "air" your callsign in plain English.  How do you
KNOW (for sure) that the person actually talking IS, in fact, the
individual the FCC assigned the call letters to??

PGP (as applied to packet) would allow you to verify that the
message did, in fact, come from the individual who "owns"
the call sign under question.

You could even extend such verification to ANY digitized data,
including digitized voice.

For more info on PGP and cryptography, check out the FAQ in
sci.crypt.  73.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
 /`-_      [e-mail]  |
{     }/  Marquette Electronics, Inc  |  SS RF: "License?  We don't
 \    /    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA  |  need no stinkin' license!"
  |__*| [e-mail]  |
--------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 94 09:34:12 GMT+12
From: [e-mail] (Dave Halverson)
Subject: PGP-Signatur in PACKET RADIO

phil reed ([e-mail]) wrote:

: It does, ordinarily. However, the AX.25 protocol used by packet radio
: includes your call sign in each packet. Therefore, every transmission
: is properly IDed (provided you have set your TNC up correctly).

--
  So what is to stop you setting up your station with a bogus call sign
  or someone else's call sign and sending stuff. Would the recipient
  know that it was bogus? Could they check?

  That's the idea with PGP isn't it, so that the recipient can verify
  that what was sent over someone's name is in fact from that someone.
--
 Dave Halverson, Wanganui N.Z.
 [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 94 10:28:19 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Touch Tone Paging (DTSS)

IG>Most repeater controllers mask inputed Touchtones (tm). This is to
IG>provide a bit of security for control functions of the repeater that
IG>may be entered on the input frequency. That makes TT signaling schemes
IG>via repeater fail.

But if one were to listen on the input, he would hear the Touchtone,
right?
-Evan Platt
Southern Region Director
Bay Area Fire Photographers Association
Internet:[e-mail]

--
---- Sent by: InfoDude Communications,
              [phone]
              Palo Alto, Ca.
              Via Major Gateway/Internet

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 1994 13:49:48 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Gene Wolford)
Subject: Wayne Green, unfailing clear thinker? NOT!

I started subscribing to 73 largely do to my feeling that I was getting an
alternate view of Amateur issues based strictly on facts and logical
thinking. Of course, I may have so deluded myself because I found his views
often matched my own.

A few issues back, Green, apparently unable to contain himself, provided an
insightful view of how he injects thoughtless emotionalism into his
thinking.
In this case, rather than respond logically to logically made arguments,
(in the letters column), he heaped uncalled for vitriolic insults on those
who disagreed with him.

Detail:

Earlier in the year, Green made some sneeringly negative comment about gun
ownership and the NRA in one of his editorials. A couple of months later he
ran a couple of polite, logical, point-by-point letters seeking to debate
the issue with him.
He responded with more sneering insults, mixed with emotional
ranting,(without facts), an a litany of non-facts, sounding as if he had
just been studying Handgun Control Incs. misguided plans to disarm the
honest citizen.

You'd think a guy who makes his living courtesy of the 1st amendment could
see the value of defending it, especially a guy who purports to be as
conservative as Green.

I don't send money to folks who spend it forcing me to defend my rights.
Life's too short to pay somebody to steal my spare time and funds.

Good bye Green! No renewal for you.

I guess I'll join ARRL and read their magazine.

73's
Gene
KB7WIP /AG(at last!)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       "Now is the time when men work quietly in the
            fields and women weep softly in the kitchen;
     The Democrats are elected and no man's property is safe."

                         -originally  by-
                         -Daniel Webster-

             -updated by me -


Don't like it? Please direct flames to: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 17:11:03 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)

References<383ppl$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Kindness and ham radio

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Hi Gary,
>
>> Sure, nothing wrong with that, but it seemed Mike was complaining
>> that the repeater users were preventing him from DXing. That sounds
>> like he intended to use the repeater frequency for simplex communications.
>
>Sorry if that's what was inferred by my message. It certainly isn't what
>I meant. In Europe, repeaters are primarily intended for use by mobile
>stations. I was mobile, and I wished to have a QSO (mainly to practice
>my rusty French). I was prevented from doing so by a handful of base
>station operators working DX through a number of the repeaters on route
>from London to Paris.

Ah, I understand now, my apologies for jumping to the wrong conclusion.

>I was seriously pissed off when they thought they should swap QSL cards!

This is what really set me off. I may be reading you wrong again,
but it seems you think QSLs should only be sent when they could
count for some contest or award. Perhaps instead it was the operators
using the repeater who thought the QSL would count for a contest or
award. In that case, I've misinterpreted your complaint yet again.
Meanwhile, I think QSLs should be sent as a polite thank you for
a meaningful contact. It shouldn't matter if that contact is direct
or via relay. So I'd find stations wishing to exchange QSLs after
an unusual repeater contact perfectly normal.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 17:21:10 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)

References<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Kindness and ham radio

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>1/ I was questioning the need to work DX through repeaters, period.
>
>2/ I was questioning the need to work DX through repeaters during the sort
>   of tropo conditions we had in NW Europe last week.

I'd suggest that there is no *need* to work DX at all. However, if
one gets enjoyment out of exploiting a somewhat rare propagation
condition via repeater, who is to say that they're wrong?

>3/ I was questioning the concept of exchanging QSL cards for repeater
>   contacts.

Ah, perhaps I wasn't reading you wrong after all. Are you saying that
QSL cards should only be exchanged under circumstances where they count
for score in some gaming activity?

>4/ I was questioning the attitude of a base station who hogs a repeater
>   1/2 mile up the street in order to work DX when mobile stations were
>   trying to work through the repeater.

That I can understand. It's impolite not to share a common resource.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

------------------------------

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #1154
******************************