CALL FOR DISCUSSION: rec.ham-radio reorganization
Chris Klausmeier
/ Jay Maynard and I propose the following reorganization of the rec.ham-radio
/ hierarchy:
/
/ PROPOSED ADDITIONS:
/
/ 1. rec.radio.ham
/
/ "A General newsgroup for discussions about amateur radio."
How about rec.radio.ham.misc? That seems to be the emerging standard for
these leafy hierarchies.
/ -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | Without KILL files,
/ ->pa...@shasta.Stanford.EDU | life itself would be impossible.
--
[] Chris Klausmeier -- cya...@mixcom.UUCP []
[] if I could wave my magic wand... [][][][]
paulf
PROPOSED ADDITIONS:
1. rec.radio.ham
"A General newsgroup for discussions about amateur radio."
2. rec.radio.ham.legal
"A newsgroup for the discussion of legal aspects of amateur radio."
3. rec.radio.ham.packet
"A newsgroup for discussions about amateur packet radio."
4. rec.radio.ham.swap
"A forsale group for the rec.radio.ham hierarchy."
PROPOSED DELETIONS:
1. rec.ham-radio
Now superseded by rec.radio.ham and rec.radio.ham.legal.
2. rec.ham-radio.packet
Superseded by rec.radio.ham.packet
3. rec.ham-radio.swap
Replaced by rec.radio.ham.swap
Commentary Period: Dec. 4 -14, 1990
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | Without KILL files,
Jay Maynard
>pa...@shasta.Stanford.EDU (paulf) writes:
>> Jay Maynard and I propose the following reorganization of the rec.ham-radio
>> hierarchy:
> It seems the only effect of this reorganization is the addition of
>rec.ham-radio.legal, other than the name changing.
> Why is this a Good Thing? Why not just add rec.ham-radio.legal and
>leave the rest of the structure alone? Is it not simpler (and prone to
>fewer screwups) to do this instead of renaming everything?
The idea behind this is to move the ham radio groups into the same hierarchy
as the other radio groups. The hierarchy rec.radio was created a couple of
years ago to hold rec.radio.shortwave, and has acquired other radio-related
groups since then; it's the logical place for ham radio, too.
(Side note: Please make sure that discussion is posted to news.groups as well
as rec.ham-radio. This is required by the Guidelines for Newsgroup Creation.)
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmay...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"...flames are a specific art form of Usenet..." -- Gregory C. Woodbury
Brendan Kehoe
> Finally, I don't personally like the .legal name, as it encourages
>thought of "what part is not legal?" If you can can think of a beter
>name (ie. more descriptive) it might aid in identifying the group. I
>don't really care for legal-issues or legalities, but perhaps
>regulations would be better, since you will probably be talking mostly
>about things which are not laws (passed by congress) but regulations
>from the FCC.
I second the use of something like rec.radio.ham.regs .. making it
'.legal' is kinda like proposing a group for '.nocode' too. :-)
--
Brendan Kehoe - Widener Sun Network Manager - bre...@cs.widener.edu
Widener University in Chester PA A Bloody Sun-vs-Dec War Zone
Hey ... do you think George Bush carries money or any kind of ID with him?
Avatar
+hierarchy:
<portions of your most exellent plan deleted to save bandwidth>
+
+PROPOSED ADDITIONS:
+
To which I'd like to see the addition of 'rec.radio.cb'..sounds silly
comming from me, right? The notion is advanced that in giving people a
_place_ for discussions related to the use of CB radio, perhaps it will
foster some healthy growth and change there.
Additionally, there might be a trend towards involving more people in the
_hobby_ of radio, since CB can be a stepping stone towards a ham ticket.
Consider this a vote FOR the plan, with or without my proposal, nice job!
-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY +-------------------------+
Citicorp(+)TTI *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 *
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 +-------------------------+
{csun,philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix}!ttidca!sorgatz **
(OPINIONS EXPRESSED DO NOT REFLECT THE VIEWS OF CITICORP OR ITS MANAGEMENT!)
Jay Maynard
> I second the use of something like rec.radio.ham.regs .. making it
>'.legal' is kinda like proposing a group for '.nocode' too. :-)
That's the idea. .legal is intended to be the place to have the interminable
no-code wars.
T.J.Saarinen OH3YN
>hierarchy:
>
>PROPOSED ADDITIONS:
>
>1. rec.radio.ham
>3. rec.radio.ham.packet
>4. rec.radio.ham.swap
>
>PROPOSED DELETIONS:
>
>1. rec.ham-radio
>2. rec.ham-radio.packet
>3. rec.ham-radio.swap
I do agree!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| - InterNet : ts7...@tut.fi | - HamRadio : OH...@OH3TR.FIN.EU |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want! |
Ran Atkinson
one which I fully support.
The new heirarchy should be rec.radio.AMATEUR though not rec.radio.HAM
because the jargon term "Ham-Radio" is not common outside North America
and large portions of the net are now outside North America (unlike
when the current group was created). By using the normal, non-US-jargon
terminology the namespace is clearer and easier for folks to use. It
is also easier for folks potentially interested in becoming licensed
Amateur Radio Operators find the right newsgroup.
I'd also advocate mv'ing the parent group into a .misc group
(or equivalent) to reduce cross-posting and make the namespace simpler
(hence easier to use). I know that Jay won't like this last idea
since he`s opposed the whole .misc concept in news.groups, but I still
see lots of hard evidence that the concept works in the general case
not just in comp.sys.*
Regards,
Ran
ran...@Virginia.EDU
former FM Broadcast Engineer ( FCC Commercial License )
P.S.
I haven't had time to learn Morse yet. When I do, I'll get an
Amateur license as well...
Jay Maynard
> A few comments: a few sentences about the other rec.radio groups would
>have made it clear why you were changing ham-radio to radio.ham, and I
>would like to see .misc used for the catch-all group.
I'll make sure the text for the CfV explains the reason behind the relocation.
I'm not married to rec.radio.ham versus rec.radio.ham.misc; comments, folks?
For that matter, there seems to be some sentiment for .amateur versus .ham;
I'd like to see some kind of consensus one way or the other.
> Finally, I don't personally like the .legal name, as it encourages
>thought of "what part is not legal?" If you can can think of a beter
>name (ie. more descriptive) it might aid in identifying the group. I
>don't really care for legal-issues or legalities, but perhaps
>regulations would be better, since you will probably be talking mostly
>about things which are not laws (passed by congress) but regulations
>from the FCC.
The name .legal came from the commonest flame on rec.ham-radio: "You can't do
that, it's illegal!" It describes the intended traffic pretty well.
Dugal James P.
> Finally, I don't personally like the .legal name, as it encourages
>thought of "what part is not legal?" If you can can think of a beter
>name (ie. more descriptive) it might aid in identifying the group. I
I agree; how about calling it "rules" rather than "legal" ?
--
-- James Dugal, N5KNX Internet: j...@usl.edu
Associate Director Ham packet: n5knx@k5arh
Computing Center US Mail: PO Box 42770 Lafayette, LA 70504
University of Southwestern LA. Tel. 318-231-6417 U.S.A.
NM1D
> Jay Maynard and I propose the following reorganization of the rec.ham-radio
> hierarchy:
>
> PROPOSED ADDITIONS:
>
> 1. rec.radio.ham
> "A General newsgroup for discussions about amateur radio."
> 2. rec.radio.ham.legal
> "A newsgroup for the discussion of legal aspects of amateur radio."
> 3. rec.radio.ham.packet
> "A newsgroup for discussions about amateur packet radio."
> 4. rec.radio.ham.swap
> "A forsale group for the rec.radio.ham hierarchy."
>
> PROPOSED DELETIONS:
>
> 1. rec.ham-radio
> Now superseded by rec.radio.ham and rec.radio.ham.legal.
> 2. rec.ham-radio.packet
> Superseded by rec.radio.ham.packet
> 3. rec.ham-radio.swap
> Replaced by rec.radio.ham.swap
>
This makes sense... BUT if we are going to go through the pain of changing
the name of this group, we SHOULD make an effort to refer to ourselves in a
way that a casual 'reader' (the supposed 'lay' reader, or non-amateur) would
understand who we are.....
Basically, what I am saying is that all references to the slang 'HAM'
should be changed to 'AMATEUR'.... therefore 'rec.radio.ham' becomes
'rec.radio.amateur' and so on. This will not cause confusion on anyones part.
I think that only 'hams' know what the term 'ham' radio really means.
PLEASE, if we are going to change names of the group, lets go for the
full name:
rec.radio.amateur
rec.radio.amateur.packet
rec.radio.amateur.swap
rec.radio.amateur.legal (yes, I think this subgroup can be added,
although I wonder how many people will 'read'
it at all!)
P.S. It seems that this site only receives a VERY FEW postings for
rec.ham-radio. So if I seem to not know what is going on... it's because I
don't!!!
Rich
--
/**************************************************************************\
* Rich Bono (NM1D) If I could only 'C' forever!! rb...@necis.nec.com *
* (508) 635-6300 NEC Technologies Inc. NM1D@WB1DSW *
\**************************************************************************/
Peter B. Hayward
> In article <29...@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davi...@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill
davidsen) writes:
> > Finally, I don't personally like the .legal name, as it encourages
> >thought of "what part is not legal?" If you can can think of a beter
> >name (ie. more descriptive) it might aid in identifying the group. I
>
> I agree; how about calling it "rules" rather than "legal" ?
I completely agree with this proposal to change the proposed name to
...rules. I have been very uneasy about the ...legal name, believing that
it would *not* be intuitively obvious what *should* be in the new
group. I felt the result would be that people would cross-post
to several rec.ham-radio groups, thus increasing the noise level.
With rec.ham-radio.rules (or rec.radio.amateur.rules) we might
save some bandwidth (and sanity).
---------------------------
Peter B. Hayward N9IZT
University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Greg A. Woods
> hierarchy:
I would respectfully suggest the slang term "ham" be replaced by the
proper designation "amateur". This slang term has caused more
problems for public relations and promotion of amateur radio around
the world than any other single thing (IMHO).
I propose the proposal be re-worded as follows (uppercase used for
emphasis):
1. rec.radio.AMATEUR
"A General newsgroup for discussions about amateur radio."
^^^^^^^
2. rec.radio.AMATEUR.legal
"A newsgroup for the discussion of legal aspects of amateur radio."
^^^^^^^
3. rec.radio.AMATEUR.packet
"A newsgroup for discussions about amateur packet radio."
^^^^^^^
4. rec.radio.AMATEUR.swap
"A forsale group for the rec.radio.amateur hierarchy."
--
Greg A. Woods
woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP ECI and UniForum Canada
+1-416-443-1734 [h] +1-416-595-5425 [w] VE3TCP Toronto, Ontario CANADA
"Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible"-ORWELL
Ran Atkinson
>I had enough difficulty getting the University to enable the current
>groups, changing things just makes life difficult. We will probably lose
>the service altogether.
>Mike.
Ignoring the fact that local administrative problems aren't of relevance
to the net at large, there probably are a fair number of folks who'd like
to read the Amateur Radio groups as mail rather than news.
Perhaps someone out there would be willing to setup a news->mail gateway
for one or more of these groups. There is a very slight chance I could
work out something like that, but it isn't trivial for me in my present
circumstance. Surely there is an Amateur Radio operator who is a sysadmin
somewhere already who could be talked into creating such a service. I'd
be happy to help out with the "How to set it up under UNIX ?" if someone
were willing to put it in place.
Ran
ran...@Virginia.EDU
Jim Grubs
> From: davi...@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr)
> Date: 5 Dec 90 14:34:04 GMT
> Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY
> Message-ID: <29...@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
> Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.ham-radio
> |
> | 1. rec.radio.ham
> | 2. rec.radio.ham.legal
> | 3. rec.radio.ham.packet
> | 4. rec.radio.ham.swap
>
> | PROPOSED DELETIONS:
> |
> | 1. rec.ham-radio
> | 2. rec.ham-radio.packet
> | 3. rec.ham-radio.swap
>
>
> | Commentary Period: Dec. 4 -14, 1990
>
> have made it clear why you were changing ham-radio to radio.ham, and I
> would like to see .misc used for the catch-all group.
>
> thought of "what part is not legal?" If you can can think of a beter
> name (ie. more descriptive) it might aid in identifying the group. I
> regulations would be better, since you will probably be talking mostly
> about things which are not laws (passed by congress) but regulations
> from the FCC.
How about rec.radio.amateur.policy?
My only objection to the new newsgroup is that it has all the earmarks of
sticking one's head in the sand rather than coming to grips with the fact
that when ham radio dies (and it probably will) it will be for political
reasons. We ignore that side of the hobby at our peril.
The technoids go on and on wonderfully about their ideas for the design of
the Phantasmagorical Data Engine with the blind faith assumption that when
they're done, we'll have amateur bands to use it in. I don't think we can
assume that, and sticking those who write about it in a "newsghetto" so they
can be ignored more easily will be counterproductive in the long run. Penny
wise and pound foolish, as it were.
--
Jim Grubs - via FidoNet node 1:234/1
UUCP: ...!uunet!w8grt!jim.grubs
INTERNET: jim....@w8grt.fidonet.org
Jeff DePolo
> Basically, what I am saying is that all references to the slang 'HAM'
>should be changed to 'AMATEUR'.... therefore 'rec.radio.ham' becomes
>'rec.radio.amateur' and so on. This will not cause confusion on anyones part.
> I think that only 'hams' know what the term 'ham' radio really means.
Sounds like a good idea to me. We could use more members, and I think
"amateur" is more recognizable to non-hams.
> rec.radio.amateur
> rec.radio.amateur.packet
> rec.radio.amateur.swap
> rec.radio.amateur.legal (yes, I think this subgroup can be added,
> although I wonder how many people will 'read'
> it at all!)
r.r.a.legal seems a bit too specific. Legal debates (e.g. regulation
debates, tower ordinances, etc.) seem to come and go in spurts. I
don't see the use of having a seperate group for just this particular
aspect of normal traffic.
r.r.a.swap might be better as just rec.radio.swap, since this may encourage
others with non-amateur-specific yet amateur-related equipment to post
here as well. For example, test equipment, SW receivers, scanners,
microwave equipment, etc. is of interest to hams, but is not necessarily
ham specific. Traffic on the current r.h-r.swap is relatively light
the way it is now (probably averages about 8 articles/day), so expanding
it seems to be logical.
Another idea, though I don't feel too strongly one way or the other
on this one. Make it rec.radio.amateur.digital instead of .packet.
This may encourage discussion of possible new modes other than
what we commonly consider "packet" (e.g. spread-spectrum). Oops.
I can see it now. Some of the die-hard CW ops will decide that
this is their place to hang out. :-)
--- Jeff
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jeff DePolo N3HBZ Twisted Pair: (215) 386-7199
dep...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu RF: 146.685- 442.70+ 144.455s (Philadelphia)
University of Pennsylvania Carrier Pigeon: 420 S. 42nd St. Phila PA 19104
Bite the Wax Tadpole
>I'm not married to rec.radio.ham versus rec.radio.ham.misc; comments, folks?
Either one is fine with me.
>For that matter, there seems to be some sentiment for .amateur versus .ham;
>I'd like to see some kind of consensus one way or the other.
I also support rec.radio.amateur.* since it eliminates the US local jargon
and makes the name more accessible.
...b.
--- Brian L. Gollum ----------------------------------- standard disclaimer ---
P.O.Box 882163 - San Francisco - California - 94188-2163 - 415.553.4104
{amdahl,decwrl,sun}!apple!mas1!brig - mas1!br...@apple.com
"The greatest good for the privileged few." - John Uhley
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Willis
Jay Maynard
> To which I'd like to see the addition of 'rec.radio.cb'..sounds silly
>comming from me, right? The notion is advanced that in giving people a
>_place_ for discussions related to the use of CB radio, perhaps it will
>foster some healthy growth and change there.
OK, is there support for this one? If so, I'll be happy to add it to the plan.
There has been occasional CB-related discussion in rec.ham-radio, and it has
proven to be a remarkable flame generator...
Norman Yarvin
>> I think that only 'hams' know what the term 'ham' radio really means.
>
>Sounds like a good idea to me. We could use more members, and I think
>"amateur" is more recognizable to non-hams.
This seems exaggerated. I have been involved neither in actual ham radio
nor in the newsgroup, but have known the meaning of the word for ages.
Do you really want those who don't know what a ham is to post?
--
Norman Yarvin yarvin...@cs.yale.edu
"It's safer to be heartless than to be mindless. The history of the world
is the triumph of the heartless over the mindless."
-- Sir Humphrey Appleby, _Yes_Minister_
Alan Ruffer
>
> Basically, what I am saying is that all references to the slang 'HAM'
>should be changed to 'AMATEUR'.... therefore 'rec.radio.ham' becomes
>'rec.radio.amateur' and so on. This will not cause confusion on anyones part.
>full name:
>
> rec.radio.amateur
> rec.radio.amateur.packet
> rec.radio.amateur.swap
> rec.radio.amateur.legal (yes, I think this subgroup can be added,
> although I wonder how many people will 'read'
> it at all!)
I agree 100% with the above! Since we are going through the process, lets
get the names of the groups to correspond to convention. Also lets
make the group names descriptive. Get rid of the "ham" and substitute
amateur!
While I am not sure that rec.radio.amateur.legal is the best name for the
^^^^^
additional group, I do not have a better suggestion so will go along with
this until a better idea comes along.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Alan R. Ruffer UUCP: {csccat,chinacat!holston}!adept!alan |
| Route 1, Box 1745 Amateur Radio Station WB5FKH |
| Sulphur, LA 70663 BBS: (318) 527-6667, 19200(PEP)/9600(V.32)/2400/1200 |
| |
| "A witty saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Jeff DePolo
>[I previously wrote that "amateur" was a better word than "ham" for
the sake of being more familiar to the uninitiated.
>
>This seems exaggerated. I have been involved neither in actual ham radio
>nor in the newsgroup, but have known the meaning of the word for ages.
>
>Do you really want those who don't know what a ham is to post?
Given the current state of the hobby and it's relatively slow rate of
growth (from a membership standpoint), I'd say that the answer to the
question as to whether or not we want people who currently aren't
hams to post is a resounding S9+60 YES! Even if they don't post,
maybe it will entice them to at least subscribe.
I, too, knew that "ham radio" and "amateur radio" were the same before
I got interested, but it's probably only because my cousin was a
ham (amateur). Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Amateur Radio gives at
least somewhat of a clearer idea of what we're all about.
My $0.02, but then again, $0.02 doesn't buy you much these days.
Phil Howard KA9WGN
> From: sor...@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar)
> From: jmay...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard)
> From: j...@pc.usl.edu (Dugal James P.)
> From: eep...@surrey.ac.uk (Mike Willis)
> From: pb...@midway.uchicago.edu (Peter B. Hayward)
> From: dep...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeff DePolo)
> From: sta...@phoenix.com (John Stanley)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> thought of "what part is not legal?" If you can can think of a beter
> name (ie. more descriptive) it might aid in identifying the group. I
> don't really care for legal-issues or legalities, but perhaps
> regulations would be better, since you will probably be talking mostly
> about things which are not laws (passed by congress) but regulations
> from the FCC.
This depends on what you want in the subgroup. I believe most everyone
wants to see the "no code wars" and the "pizza patch wars" put away in
this subgroup. But what about issues like "antenna covenants" and stuff
like "urban zoning" as it relates to ham (excuse me, amateur) radio?
Also there are legal issues related to radio but NOT amateur radio, such
as the issues related to listening to private transmissions. Maybe we
need:
rec.radio.legal
or even:
rec.radio.moral :-) [smiley means I am NOT serious]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: ran...@Virginia.EDU (Ran Atkinson)
> Date: 5 Dec 90 16:39:57 GMT
>
> The new heirarchy should be rec.radio.AMATEUR though not rec.radio.HAM
> because the jargon term "Ham-Radio" is not common outside North America
> and large portions of the net are now outside North America (unlike
> when the current group was created). By using the normal, non-US-jargon
> terminology the namespace is clearer and easier for folks to use. It
> is also easier for folks potentially interested in becoming licensed
> Amateur Radio Operators find the right newsgroup.
This is yet another opportunity to further promote a more modern amateur
radio service and shrug off the "ham" concept which is some people's minds
is someone "hamming it up" on a radio in a way much like CB.
> I'd also advocate mv'ing the parent group into a .misc group
> (or equivalent) to reduce cross-posting and make the namespace simpler
> (hence easier to use). I know that Jay won't like this last idea
> since he`s opposed the whole .misc concept in news.groups, but I still
> see lots of hard evidence that the concept works in the general case
> not just in comp.sys.*
If this concept works, what was the original problem in the first case?
I really don't see any particular need to do this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: sor...@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar)
> Date: 5 Dec 90 18:25:16 GMT
>
> To which I'd like to see the addition of 'rec.radio.cb'..sounds silly
> comming from me, right? The notion is advanced that in giving people a
> _place_ for discussions related to the use of CB radio, perhaps it will
> foster some healthy growth and change there.
Sounds like an interesting idea. It would certainly "document" the
differences and perhaps reduce a lot of the "is this the CB group"
question postings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: jmay...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard)
> Date: 5 Dec 90 19:18:52 GMT
>
> I'm not married to rec.radio.ham versus rec.radio.ham.misc; comments, folks?
> For that matter, there seems to be some sentiment for .amateur versus .ham;
> I'd like to see some kind of consensus one way or the other.
consensus_for_amateur += ka9wgn;
/* C lingo for add vote to the .amateur idea */
> The name .legal came from the commonest flame on rec.ham-radio: "You can't do
> that, it's illegal!" It describes the intended traffic pretty well.
Jay, do we want to include NON-FCC legal issues as well, such as local
zoning and covenant problems?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: j...@pc.usl.edu (Dugal James P.)
> Date: 5 Dec 90 23:00:36 GMT
>
> I agree; how about calling it "rules" rather than "legal" ?
If we want to limit the group to FCC rules, then ".rules" would work.
DO NOT use ".fcc" since this is a world-wide newsgroup.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: eep...@surrey.ac.uk (Mike Willis)
> Date: 6 Dec 90 09:54:16 GMT
>
> I had enough difficulty getting the University to enable the current
> groups, changing things just makes life difficult. We will probably lose
> the service altogether.
> Mike.
Usenet changes newsgroups often (read news.groups) and there should be
in place some administrative or automatic function to keep things up to
date there. Why don't you offer to help do it?
Really now, should the rest of us be bound to limitations which are the
cause of one or a few systems having insufficient system administrator
resources or competency? I say we should not. Sorry, Mike.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: jmay...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard)
> Date: 6 Dec 90 13:31:42 GMT
>
> In article <21...@ttidca.TTI.COM> sor...@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar) writes:
> > To which I'd like to see the addition of 'rec.radio.cb'..sounds silly
>
> OK, is there support for this one? If so, I'll be happy to add it to the plan
> There has been occasional CB-related discussion in rec.ham-radio, and it has
> proven to be a remarkable flame generator...
It has my support. As I mentioned before I believe it could readily show
that there *IS* a difference. Lots of people still don't know there is a
difference between ham or amateur radio and CB radio.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: pb...@midway.uchicago.edu (Peter B. Hayward)
> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 15:55:09 GMT
>
> I completely agree with this proposal to change the proposed name to
> ...rules. I have been very uneasy about the ...legal name, believing that
> it would *not* be intuitively obvious what *should* be in the new
> group. I felt the result would be that people would cross-post
> to several rec.ham-radio groups, thus increasing the noise level.
> With rec.ham-radio.rules (or rec.radio.amateur.rules) we might
> save some bandwidth (and sanity).
If someone has a legal issue, such as:
is it legal to...
is it illegal to...
we should remove rule...
we should add rule...
and cross posts it, then the the problem is with someone who is simply
not thinking about what they are doing. Eliminating ALL these groups
would clearly get rid of that problem. Of course we don't want to do
that. The difference between "legal" and "rules" is small, but there
is some. The NON-rules things would be left out. Maybe that is what
the consensus wants in which case ".rules" would be appropriate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: dep...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeff DePolo)
> Date: 6 Dec 90 18:42:14 GMT
>
> r.r.a.legal seems a bit too specific. Legal debates (e.g. regulation
> debates, tower ordinances, etc.) seem to come and go in spurts. I
> don't see the use of having a seperate group for just this particular
> aspect of normal traffic.
Sometimes it comes in floods. More often in firestorms. When it does
come, it seems to be causing readers to drop off.
> r.r.a.swap might be better as just rec.radio.swap, since this may encourage
> others with non-amateur-specific yet amateur-related equipment to post
> here as well. For example, test equipment, SW receivers, scanners,
> microwave equipment, etc. is of interest to hams, but is not necessarily
> ham specific. Traffic on the current r.h-r.swap is relatively light
> the way it is now (probably averages about 8 articles/day), so expanding
> it seems to be logical.
That seems like a reasonable argument. While there might be some reason
to separate amateur-only swap posting so that they can be fed into a
packet network, that might be a BAD THING by encouraging the lack of
someone (carbon based unit) filtering the messages. But this is a matter
for rec.radio.amateur.legal when it comes online (presumptuous aren't I).
> Another idea, though I don't feel too strongly one way or the other
> on this one. Make it rec.radio.amateur.digital instead of .packet.
> This may encourage discussion of possible new modes other than
> what we commonly consider "packet" (e.g. spread-spectrum). Oops.
> I can see it now. Some of the die-hard CW ops will decide that
> this is their place to hang out. :-)
This is probably where r.r.a.tech or such might be better. Where would
you like to classify transmitting voice by digital, but not packet, means?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: sta...@phoenix.com (John Stanley)
> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 90 17:15:37 EST
>
> eep...@surrey.ac.uk (Mike Willis) writes:
> >
> > I had enough difficulty getting the University to enable the current
> > groups, changing things just makes life difficult. We will probably lose
> > the service altogether.
> > Mike.
>
> Bravo! Like the old saying goes, if it ain't fix, don't broke it.
Phil's corollary:
If I was able to fix it, then it must have been broken.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--Phil Howard, KA9WGN-- | Individual CHOICE is fundamental to a free society
<ph...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> | no matter what the particular issue is all about.
Gary Coffman
> hierarchy:
>
> PROPOSED ADDITIONS:
>
> 1. rec.radio.ham
> "A General newsgroup for discussions about amateur radio."
> 2. rec.radio.ham.legal
> "A newsgroup for the discussion of legal aspects of amateur radio."
> 3. rec.radio.ham.packet
> "A newsgroup for discussions about amateur packet radio."
> 4. rec.radio.ham.swap
> "A forsale group for the rec.radio.ham hierarchy."
>
> PROPOSED DELETIONS:
>
> 1. rec.ham-radio
> Now superseded by rec.radio.ham and rec.radio.ham.legal.
> 2. rec.ham-radio.packet
> Superseded by rec.radio.ham.packet
> 3. rec.ham-radio.swap
> Replaced by rec.radio.ham.swap
The fallacy of this proposal as I see it is that rec.radio.ham.legal will
consist of cross-posts to/from the base group. The purpose of many of the
posts that prompted this proposed reorganization of the groups is to wake
up amateurs to the political implications for the survival of amateur radio
of many regulatory matters. These posters will continue to cross-post in
an attempt to get the widest readership. In addition, many of the postings
that the reorganizers want shifted to legal are triggered by posts in the
base group and will continue to be answered in the base group until a flurry
of postings begging for the thread to be taken to legal are received in
the base group. This is not the intended result of this reorganization.
A better plan (IMHO) is as follows:
1. rec.radio.ham.bland
A safe smug little hole for those offended by controversy. No
posting of mods allowed. No postings about antenna matching allowed.
No code/no-code postings allowed. No mention of autopatches allowed.
No mention of the future of amateur radio allowed. No postings about
VECs allowed. No mention of using amateur radio in aircraft or trains
allowed. Don't even use the letters A R R L in this group. No
content allowed.
2. rec.radio.ham.misc
A general replacement for the current rowdy base group.
3. rec.radio.ham.swap
The swap group works relatively well, though for sale postings do
continue to be seen in the base group.
4. rec.radio.ham.packet
The packet group works relatively well, though it too seems full
of cross-posts lately.
Don't even THINK of renaming the groups "amateur" rather than "ham", that's
MUCH too controversial.
Gary KE4ZV
WSHB Operations Eng
>
> Finally, I don't personally like the .legal name, as it encourages
> thought of "what part is not legal?" If you can can think of a beter
> name (ie. more descriptive) it might aid in identifying the group.
How about rec.radio.ham.fistfights
--
Michael Batchelor--Systems/Operations Engineer #compliments and complaints
WSHB - An International Broadcast Station of # lett...@csms.com
The Christian Science Monitor Syndicate, Inc. #technical questions and reports
mich...@wshb.csms.com +1 803 625 4880 # letterb...@csms.com
Ran Atkinson
".tech" subgroup because most of the existing postings
are technical to some degree or another and most Amateur
Radio operators think that they are technically oriented
so it wouldn't split the traffic neatly -- which is the
point of having a subgroup created...
Wm E Davidsen Jr
| This seems exaggerated. I have been involved neither in actual ham radio
| nor in the newsgroup, but have known the meaning of the word for ages.
|
| Do you really want those who don't know what a ham is to post?
Sounds like biggotry to me. After all, if this guy who's only
connection with amateur radio is to live all his life in a country
where "ham" is a common term knows what a ham is, why should we pay any
attention to all those other people in the world who share both the net
and the airwaves?
People in other countries, Americans are not all like this. Most of us
find this insistance on a local term as offensive as you do. Please
let's not have another round of "ugly American" postings. This person is
not typical. The guys with the funny QSL cards are. Peace.
--
bill davidsen (davi...@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you can use unix.
Brian McMinn
> r.r.a.legal seems a bit too specific. I don't see the use of having
> a seperate group for just this particular aspect of normal traffic.
I'd rather see r.r.a.rules or r.r.a.regulations
> r.r.a.swap might be better as just rec.radio.swap
I'd rather see this too.
I'd also like to see rec.radio.cb so that CB related stuff would have
a place to be without being flamed to death and rec.radio.amateur.tech
(or perhaps just rec.radio.tech since the shortwave folks would also
be interested in the same things) for technical discussions.
--
--
Brian McMinn br...@amd.com
Advanced Micro Devices N5PSS
Austin, Texas 1-(512)-462-5389
"You can't leap a chasm in two jumps."
Wm E Davidsen Jr
| The technoids go on and on wonderfully about their ideas for the design of
| the Phantasmagorical Data Engine with the blind faith assumption that when
| they're done, we'll have amateur bands to use it in. I don't think we can
| assume that, and sticking those who write about it in a "newsghetto" so they
| can be ignored more easily will be counterproductive in the long run. Penny
| wise and pound foolish, as it were.
Your right to speak is subordinate to my right to ignore you. Mixing
in stuff people don't want to read doesn't make them read it, it makes
them hate it. And makes it harder to find for those who want it.
Ed McGuire
Maynard) writes:
I'm not married to rec.radio.ham versus rec.radio.ham.misc;
comments, folks?
I lean towards the former. That's because at my site the .misc doesn't
give me anything. I understand that some sites have more trouble with
cross posts, especially non-UNIX sites.
For that matter, there seems to be some sentiment for .amateur
versus .ham; I'd like to see some kind of consensus one way or the
other.
The argument for .amateur seems very reasonable to me.
--
peace. -- Ed
"Over here, Bones! This man's dying!"
"Damn it, Jim! I'm a doctor, not a . . . What did you say?"
Jim Vienneau - Sun Microsystems
>Let me just say that I'd oppose any proposal to create a
> ".tech" subgroup because most of the existing postings
You've got to be kidding! Most of the postings technical? Only if you
consider questions about nocode, callsign projects, clean fists, club
stations, licensing procedures (aka Gorden West), Ham stacks, super
repeaters, radar detectors, *Camcoders*???, CB, QSL card dimentions,
reverse autopatches, flea markets, fees, numerous FCC comments, cyrillic?,
Herbie net, antenna restrictions, etc, etc, etc, technical?!. Yes, *PLEASE*
let's setup a .tech subgroup (works for rec.auto).
Jim Vienneau, Sun Microsystems Inc - Billerica, MA
Email: jvie...@east.sun.com Amateur Radio: WB1B
Good old Ma Bell (well old anyway): (508)671-0372
Jim Grubs
> Basically, what I am saying is that all references to the slang 'HAM'
> should be changed to 'AMATEUR'.... therefore 'rec.radio.ham' becomes
> 'rec.radio.amateur' and so on. This will not cause confusion on anyones
> part.
> I think that only 'hams' know what the term 'ham' radio really means.
I'm not arguing against changing the name, but at the same time I think you
underestimate the degree to which 'radio ham' has over the decades become a
widely understood term among non-hams.
Jim Grubs
> Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY
> Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio,rec.ham-radio.packet,rec.ham-radio.swap,
> rec.radio.shortwave,news.groups
>
> Your right to speak is subordinate to my right to ignore you. Mixing
> in stuff people don't want to read doesn't make them read it, it makes
> them hate it. And makes it harder to find for those who want it.
I'm not arguing with the logic of the mechanics. I'm arguing against the
attitude that produced the desire for the new mechanics. I believe that it is
dangerous to believe that ignoring the very real political problems we face
will make them go away.
Robert Wier
> Jay Maynard and I propose the following reorganization of the rec.ham-radio
> hierarchy:
>
I'd be in favor of this - I hate typing those @*@&!&!(#7#
hyphens...
- Bob Wier
-------------- insert favorite standard disclaimers here ----------
College of Engineering
Northern Arizona University / Flagstaff, Arizona
Internet: r...@naucse.cse.nau.edu | BITNET: WIER@NAUVAX | WB5KXH
or uucp: ...arizona!naucse!rrw
Geert Jan de Groot
be a good idea to make a FAQ message and send it once a while.
It happens that once a while, a casual reader writes a message in the
wrong group, the most common error seems writing in rec.ham-radio what
should be in rec.ham-radio.swap.
Usually, this results in a flame storm to the mailbox of the offender,
and sometimes on the net as well.
It seems to me that the distinction between rec.radio.ham and
rec.radio.ham.legal is less clear than the swap group.
As a result, I think that more articles are mis-posted, and with the
dynamic properies of this group, the flaming remains!
Also, a FAQ might give an answer to some flame-prone questions, like
taking various equipment onto air flights, etc.
One question from an innocent beginner and the group is filled for the
rest of the month!
Other thing: Like Brian, I too would like to keep 'ham' instead of
'amateur'. At least here, broadcast band pirates and the like also
call themselves 'amateurs'.
Moreover, I usually find a new interesting newsgroup from a list
with descriptions (like a checkgroups message), instead of just the
name. And, yes, I like 'ham' too, even if (or because) there is no
similar word in Dutch or German as far as I know of.
Finally, I'd like to propose 'rules' instead of 'legal'. Bandplans,
for instance, have no legal meaning here, just 'gentlemen's agreement'.
If discussed, I'd like to see that in the rules group, because
of the traffic involved. The way I see it, 'rules' is for all rules,
not just the ones issued by the government.
That's my stuiver's worth. I'm interested in your opinion.
73, Geert Jan PE1HZG
--8<--nip-nip---------------------------------------------------------------
Geert Jan de Groot, Email: gee...@ica.philips.nl
Philips ICA, ..!hp4nl!philica!geertj
Weisshausstrasse, Ham: PE1HZG
5100 Aachen, West-Germany
phone: +49 241 6003 714 "Programs are like waffles:
fax: +49 241 6003 709 you should always throw the first one out"
[Standard disclaimers apply] - Sutherland
Greg A. Woods
> I had enough difficulty getting the University to enable the current
> groups, changing things just makes life difficult. We will probably lose
> the service altogether.
I can't imagine why an educational institution would have trouble with
anything to do with Amateur Radio! Maybe this shows how poor our PR is.
In article <1990Dec6.1...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Ran Atkinson <ran...@Virginia.EDU> writes:
[.... a suggestion to gateway rec.radio.amateur.* [;-)] to mail ....]
> Perhaps someone out there would be willing to setup a news->mail gateway
> for one or more of these groups. There is a very slight chance I could
> work out something like that, but it isn't trivial for me in my present
> circumstance. Surely there is an Amateur Radio operator who is a sysadmin
> somewhere already who could be talked into creating such a service. I'd
> be happy to help out with the "How to set it up under UNIX ?" if someone
> were willing to put it in place.
I know of one person locally who is currently doing this with the
rec.ham-radio groups specifically. I am sure I'll be able to do so as
well, once I get my machine (robohack) operational again, though I
will probably want to restrict the service to the local area.
Jay Maynard
>You've got to be kidding! Most of the postings technical? Only if you
>consider questions about nocode, callsign projects, clean fists, club
>stations, licensing procedures (aka Gorden West), Ham stacks, super
>repeaters, radar detectors, *Camcoders*???, CB, QSL card dimentions,
>reverse autopatches, flea markets, fees, numerous FCC comments, cyrillic?,
>Herbie net, antenna restrictions, etc, etc, etc, technical?!. Yes, *PLEASE*
>let's setup a .tech subgroup (works for rec.auto).
There's more to ham radio than just technical subjects. The object of adding
.legal and not .tech is to move the flames, not a subset of the non-flames. I
am strongly opposed to a .tech group, and don't see the overwhelming consensus
that one is needed that would change my mind.
Please continue this discussion in both news.groups and rec.ham-radio, as per
the guidelines...
Greg A. Woods
> In article <14...@necis.UUCP> rb...@necis.UUCP ( NM1D) writes:
> > I think that only 'hams' know what the term 'ham' radio really means.
>
> I'm not arguing against changing the name, but at the same time I think you
> underestimate the degree to which 'radio ham' has over the decades become a
> widely understood term among non-hams.
You point out that the term "radio ham" is understood by a growing
majority of non-amateur's. However this doesn't indicate the
connotations many non-operators associate with the term "radio ham".
In my experience, this term has no redeemable value with most
"non-hams". In fact I would argue the connotations are so negative
that we should do anything and everything we can to move to a more
neutral term, and to dispell the negative connotations associated with
Amateur Radio.
I think that the degree of "understanding" the average layman has of
the term "radio ham" is the precise reason why we should adopt the
term "amateur".
I suspect that at one time people would have argued the term "amateur"
had negative connotations. I doubt many sane people would do so now.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
While I'm here, I'd like to also state that I favor the following two names:
rec.radio.amateur.digital (to replace rec.ham-radio.packet)
rec.radio.amateur.regs (instead of r.r.a.legal)
Wm E Davidsen Jr
| Finally, I'd like to propose 'rules' instead of 'legal'. Bandplans,
| for instance, have no legal meaning here, just 'gentlemen's agreement'.
| If discussed, I'd like to see that in the rules group, because
| of the traffic involved. The way I see it, 'rules' is for all rules,
| not just the ones issued by the government.
Another one. I see most of the posting support a name indicating that
legal is not the best name for this group. Is the proposer listening?
wat...@halley.uucp
and just saw the post in n.n.ng.
> From: dep...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeff DePolo)
> Date: 6 Dec 90 18:42:14 GMT
> r.r.a.swap might be better as just rec.radio.swap, since this may encourage
> others with non-amateur-specific yet amateur-related equipment to post
> here as well.
I'm not as sure that much traffic of interest to amateurs
would be generated. There's been about zero traffic in
rec.radio.noncomm about equipment to sell/buy/trade. Of course, with
a specific group for such... I don't think that this will bother
any other rec.radio folks. It won't bother me, at least.
(Declaration of ulterior motive: Many campus radio broadcast
stations are hurting for lack of people with engineering skills. If
the rec.ham-radio groups move into the rec.radio.* heirarchy, possibly
more folks might cross over. Unlikely, at best, but it can't hurt to
try...)
A similar argument could be made for rec.radio.rules as for
rec.radio.swap, but I suspect that the regulations are sufficiently
different that sharing the same newsgroup would only annoy everyone
involved. Rec.radio.noncomm and the BITNET mailing list have had
quite a lot of traffic on indecency/obscenity/safe-harbor, which I
don't think would interest the hams.
William
ktru Chief Engineer, 1980-83
--
William J. Watson (Keep trying if halley bounces mail. It's flakey)
(cs.utexas.edu!halley!watson, wat...@halley.uucp, watson_...@tandem.com)
Preferred^ ^Most reliable (?)
Ed McGuire
I'm not arguing against changing the name, but at the same time I
think you underestimate the degree to which 'radio ham' has over
the decades become a widely understood term among non-hams.
Just curious. How widely understood is "ham" outside of the U.S.?
Outside of English speaking countries? Among non-hams in those
countries?
Larry Svec
technical things go (not product info, radio-mods, code/no-code)
but more like technical concepts, propogation, more concerning
the science of radio. This would not only be a good partitioning
emphasizing the technical aspects of the category but also would
allow those people whose company don't drag in rec. prefixes but
allow sci. prefixes to get some dosage of ham-radio.
--
Larry Svec - KD9OF
home: 708-526-1256 e-mail: uunet!motcid!svecl VHF: 145.150-
work: 708-632-5259 fax: 708-632-2413, -3741 UHF: 443.575+
"I know everything... even some things that are true!"
Jim Grubs
> From: al...@adept.UUCP (Alan Ruffer)
> Date: 10 Dec 90 00:53:01 GMT
> Organization: Perfect Partners Inc., Sulphur, LA
> Message-ID: <3...@adept.UUCP>
> Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio
>
> In article <oHqVT...@phoenix.com> sta...@phoenix.com (John Stanley)
> writes:
> >
> > What is the real progress? Changing the name from rec.ham-radio to
> >rec.radio.amateur is not progress of any kind, much less "real". It is
> >just "change".
> >
>
> John, I have to ask how can a logical person say that a name change to
> better describe this group to tens of thousands of sites worldwide is
> not
> progress?
Whether it's 'progress' or not is truly beside the point. "Ham Radio" is our
traditional pet name for our hobby, and changing our hobby, especially
changing its name, to fit the needs of an external medium we use to discuss
it is to let the tail wag the dog. Sure we could do that, but the only ones
who would want to are the ones whose hobby is 'newsgrouping' rather than
'hamming'.
Law: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Corollary: Even if it's broke, I like it that way.
--
Jim Grubs - via the friendly folks at UUNET
UUCP: ...!uunet!w8grt!jim.grubs
INTERNET: jim....@w8grt.fidonet.org
Ed McGuire
A. Woods VE3TCP) writes:
You point out that the term "radio ham" is understood by a growing
majority of non-amateur's. However this doesn't indicate the
connotations many non-operators associate with the term "radio ham".
In my experience, this term has no redeemable value with most
"non-hams". In fact I would argue the connotations are so negative
that we should do anything and everything we can to move to a more
neutral term, and to dispell the negative connotations associated with
Amateur Radio.
What are these negative connotations? I've never encountered them myself.
Jim Grubs
> From: wo...@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods)
> Date: 10 Dec 90 22:26:02 GMT
> Organization: Elegant Communications Inc.
> Message-ID: <1990Dec10.2...@eci386.uucp>
> Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave,rec.ham-radio,rec.ham-radio.packet,
> news.groups
>
> I think that the degree of "understanding" the average layman has of
> the term "radio ham" is the precise reason why we should adopt the
> term "amateur".
I don't think the average layman gives a hoot what we call ourselves and even
if they do, who cares? We should call ourselves what WE want to call
ourselves.
Speaking for myself, I have been quite happy calling myself a radio ham for
the last 40 years. When anyone asked what 'W8GRT' was, I said "My ham radio
call letters." Nobody ever came back with "What's a 'radio ham?'" A few
wanted to know if that was like a CB'er, but none wanted to know if that was
an actor or an advertized product on the radio. They ALL knew it was some
form of personal hobby two-way radio.
So, what's the big deal? Who needs changing the name of our hobby to fit some
cockamamey Usenet organization table?
Mike Willis
>> > groups, changing things just makes life difficult. We will probably lose
>> > the service altogether.
>>
>> I can't imagine why an educational institution would have trouble with
>> anything to do with Amateur Radio! Maybe this shows how poor our PR is.
Frankly, our PR is very bad. Most achademics have a low view of radio
amateurs, or at least that is the impression I get. It is not a good idea
to pass on the information you are a radio amateur in some circumstances.
I think CB is to blame for this, at least in the UK.
>
> Not all groups deal with ham radio.
>
> Universities, in particular, have shown increasing concern about
>providing USEnet news to their students/staff. They are concerned about
>free speech issues and liability for racist or sexist remarks made in
>news systems they run. The admins are concerned about the net.flamage
>that a student/staff member can generate by posting things in poor taste.
>The PSU admin did not escape the flames when his site was guessed to be
>the source of a BIFF post. The admin of the site that sourced an explicit
>description of sex between the crew of the Enterprise is probably less
>than happy that his site has USEnet.
>
> If you worry about these things, the easiest thing to do is not carry
>ANY news.
This is very true. It is difficult to get any un-moderated groups, and the
undergraduates do not have access to the majority of news services. Also
the finance is of great concern. Hence, we do not see most of the Rec.*
articles here, simply as they are deleted when new stuff arrives. Every
Monday, somthing like this happens
130 unread articles in newsgroup Rec.ham-radio read(y/n)
skipping unavailable article
Article XXXX of newsgroup Rec.ham-radio (15 left),
r somthing like that. ie we lose 115 articles and only see the last 15. I
suspect this is common to many educational sites.
UKC does not pass on any of the alt.sex or alt.drugs newsgroups (not that
I would want to read them). Those who complain about people posting
uuencoded files to the net might consider that many UK sites do not have
any easy FTP access to overseas accouts. Remember, we are now a third
world economy (nearly)
73 Mike
-- if you need a disclaimer, it is time you sorted out your legal system.
Lenin.
John Stanley
wo...@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) writes:
> In article <1990Dec6.0...@EE.Surrey.Ac.UK> eep...@surrey.ac.uk (Mike W
> > I had enough difficulty getting the University to enable the current
> > groups, changing things just makes life difficult. We will probably lose
> > the service altogether.
>
> I can't imagine why an educational institution would have trouble with
> anything to do with Amateur Radio! Maybe this shows how poor our PR is.
Not all groups deal with ham radio.
Masahiro Kitagawa
I am against rec.radio.amature.*.
"Ham" is not just a slang or jargon. It has been widely recognized.
Preserve the term "ham", please !
73 de JH3PRR
*--- **** ***-- *--* *-* *-*
Masahiro Kitagawa
NTT Research Labs. Tokyo Japan
kita...@wave.ntt.jp
John Stanley
wo...@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) writes:
> I suspect that at one time people would have argued the term "amateur"
> had negative connotations. I doubt many sane people would do so now.
>
Oh? If you have a badly leaking water heater do you call an amateur
plumber? When you are deathly ill, do you go to an amateur doctor? If
you are involved in a law suit do you seek an amateur lawyer? Unless you
answered YES to all three, then you yourself harbor negative feelings toward
the word amateur.
am-a-teur n.
2. a person who does something without
professional skill
from the Webster's New World Dictionary, 1988. The Living Dictionary includes
a phrase something like "usually with crass connotations".
The main problem with the term amateur is it is not specific about amateur
what. Ham-radio is rather specific.
Gary Coffman
>>You've got to be kidding! Most of the postings technical? Only if you
>>consider questions about nocode, callsign projects, clean fists, club
>>stations, licensing procedures (aka Gorden West), Ham stacks, super
>>repeaters, radar detectors, *Camcoders*???, CB, QSL card dimentions,
>>reverse autopatches, flea markets, fees, numerous FCC comments, cyrillic?,
>>Herbie net, antenna restrictions, etc, etc, etc, technical?!. Yes, *PLEASE*
>>let's setup a .tech subgroup (works for rec.auto).
>
>There's more to ham radio than just technical subjects. The object of adding
>.legal and not .tech is to move the flames, not a subset of the non-flames. I
>am strongly opposed to a .tech group, and don't see the overwhelming consensus
>that one is needed that would change my mind.
Jim is dead on the money. A rec.ham-radio.tech or (gag) rec.radio.amateur.tech
is just what we need. The packet subgroup and the cries over the demise of
Ham Radio magazine demonstrates that there is a fairly large following for
technical discussion among the members of rec.ham-radio. Also a group with
a technical charter seems to avoid much of the flaming found in the base
group. I believe that the .legal proposed group would be a source of cross
posts to the base group and a subject of endless flame wars consisting of
"this belongs in legal" "no it doesn't, it effects us all" type exchanges.
The last thing we need is yet another subject to bicker about. Also almost
all of the "legal" rangling that prompted this group pertains to USA hams
only and should be distribution limited to US sites, preferably by a mailing
list not a full usenet group. Ham radio is a technical hobby first and formost
and deserves a tech group. A rec.ham-radio.misc can hold the remainder.
Gary KE4ZV
Alan Ruffer
>
>Whether it's 'progress' or not is truly beside the point. "Ham Radio" is our
>traditional pet name for our hobby, and changing our hobby, especially
>changing its name, to fit the needs of an external medium we use to discuss
>it is to let the tail wag the dog. Sure we could do that, but the only ones
>who would want to are the ones whose hobby is 'newsgrouping' rather than
>'hamming'.
I guess your license says ham on it? Hmmm, funny mine doesn't, it says
Amateur. I don't think the discussion had anything to do with dogs. 8-)
A tree must bend with the wind or BREAK. So too we must be flexible, in our
choices, when having to deal with a medium external to our usual pusuits.
I'm somewhat at a loss to understand who gave you charge of defining
for others what their hobbys may or my not be though...
>Law: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
This should be applied wherever possible. The problem is things are not
right or there never would have been a call for reorganization.
>
>Corollary: Even if it's broke, I like it that way.
>
This is a refuge for those without the initiative to make things better.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Alan R. Ruffer UUCP: {csccat,chinacat!holston}!adept!alan |
| Route 1, Box 1745 Amateur Radio Station WB5FKH |
| Sulphur, LA 70663 BBS: (318) 527-6667, 19200(PEP)/9600(V.32)/2400/1200 |
| |
| "A witty saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Jay Maynard
>jmay...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>> (Side note: Please make sure that discussion is posted to news.groups as well
>> as rec.ham-radio. This is required by the Guidelines for Newsgroup Creation.)
> Unfortunately, it is not possible to do that here. Guidelines is
>guidelines, not law. In this case, they can't be followed.
Your software is broken if it can't cross-post. I suggest you get it fixed.
The purpose of having discussion in news.groups is to make sure that those
who pay attention to newsgroup issues have all of the issues brought out
for their perusal. If you don't post there, you won't convince them.
Jay Maynard
>jmay...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>> Your software is broken if it can't cross-post. I suggest you get it fixed.
>cross posting to groups not carried. Your software is broken if it
>allows you to post to groups that you have no way of reading. That was
>from someone with whom I was not involved in a discussion of any sort,
>much less on opposite sides. I tend to believe his opinion over someone
>who would grasp at straws to denigrate an opponent.
Oh, I'm sorry. I expected that, since your site is on Usenet, that it would
carry the groups that discuss Usenet itself - news.*. How foolish of me.
Please feel free to continue in your ignorance - after all, ignorance is
bliss, and you certainly appear to want to avoid being unhappy.
> I have since added news.groups. It is sort of a waste, don't you
>think? Since every post here shows up in rec.ham-radio (or is supposed
>to, according to The Net Gospel), I now have twice the space used for
>the rec.ham-radio reorg messages, plus all the other discussions. Too
>bad some people can't live outside their precious 'guidelines'.
Adding news.groups wastes *nothing*, as does any crosspost. The
article is neither transmitted twice nor stored twice on disk. It does
allow those who follow the group creation process to weigh *all* of the
issues before casting a vote. Further, the guidelines - which you show
such disdain for - were designed to minimize the possibility that changes
would be made that did not reflect the true wishes of the users and admins
of the net. Failure to follow them would doom the reorganization effort,
as there are many people who automatically vote against any proposal that
violates them...or is this your intent - to torpedo a proposal that you
obviously dislike in this backhanded manner?
Alan Ruffer
>al...@adept.UUCP (Alan Ruffer) writes:
>> I guess your license says ham on it? Hmmm, funny mine doesn't, it says
>> Amateur.
>word "license". If what the license says is what we should use, then the
>group name should be amateur.radio.license.
^^^^^^^
This is the only part I am reccomending.
Lets not TWIST everything that I've said here, as you have a habit of
doing.
I was merely pointing out that the license says AMATEUR not ham.
>> >Law: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>>
>> This should be applied wherever possible. The problem is things are not
>> right or there never would have been a call for reorganization.
>
> The name is not broken. Don't fix it. The structure is broken. Fix that.
> Changing the name is not chaging the structure.
I'm not saying the name is broken here...
It's just not as descriptive as it should be.
As part of the structure enhancement rec.radio.amateur.satellite might do
some good towards the end of distributing some of the traffic.
>> >Corollary: Even if it's broke, I like it that way.
>> This is a refuge for those without the initiative to make things better.
> There is still no evidence that renaming the group will make it better.
There is no evidence it WON'T make it better either.