Message-ID: <001b01c15564$323fff30$0a00a8c0@ThreeLakes.ca>
From: "Larry Kayser" <kayser@sympatico.ca>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <3BCA01CD.CC0109A1@alg.demon.co.uk> <001701c15548$c4af17a0$15517ad5@dave>
Subject: LF: Re: Re: Farewell, LFers
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 06:27:06 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Dave:

Even in Larry's case, where
> a private remote station with (I understand) both receiver and transmitter
at the
> same location is used, and provided the location of this remote station is
used on
> any confirmation, is probably OK.

"Even", "provided" and "probably OK"?????  I rarely differentiate between
remote TX or RX or in many cases both in use at one time for one reason or
another.

> Any claims for best
> dx or personal satisfaction in working a particular station is thrown
completely out
> of the window.  It is this deceipt aspect which I think has much upset Ron
G6RO, who
> rightly thought his signals were being heard in Windsor and not Crawley.

"thrown completely out of the window" and "deceipt"???????????????????????


> but wish to make it clear that there are quite a few of us with big
reservations
> about this 'new technology' tool.

Dave, have all the reservations you want, I have no problem with that.  I do
have a problem when words like "probably OK" and "deceipt" are "thrown"
around.  From what I read here it seems that you have a problem with what is
going on, I urge you to keep your words as your explicit problem.  There is
not in general a problem.

Regards,

Larry
VA3LK