Message-ID: <3A943B17.44A88E16@alg.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:03:03 +0000
From: "Steve Rawlings" <steve@alg.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: Splitting the reflector.
References: <65AECDF1F89AD411900400508BFC869F0D75DC@pdw-mail-1.dera.gov.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Talbot Andrew wrote:

> I think it rather sad and a sorry state of affairs for amateur radio
> that there are people out there who may not be interested in the
> technical side and presumably just want to be appliance operators.
Although I would not want to watch computer screens for hour
after hour either, I think that it is wrong to refer to the
QRSS/data mode fraternity as appliance operators.  Even though
most of the functions end up being under computer control, quite
a bit of technical know-how is required to download the software;
connect the boxes together; and then figure out if a message has
been sent, and, if so, what it means; and who sent it.
  
> How about, instead, the word OPER in the subject so we don't have to
> bother with the who-heard-who messages.
I too have been puzzled why QRSSers often refer to morse
characters as being 'heard' when they are in fact 'seen' on a
computer screen.  But I do agree that we're all getting a bit fed
up with the dozens of such  'who-heard-who' messages relating to
transatlantic QRSS signals - especially when so little
communication is being achieved.

> I thought we were all supposed to be experimenters by virtue of 
> the amateur licence
I agree.  Let us return to the virtue of 'self-training in radio
communication' - with particular emphasis on _communication_.

Oh yes (I almost forgot), if anyone is maintaining a tally chart: 
I would prefer that this group of LF enthusiasts did not split.  
(It's so much fun the way it is.)
  
Regards to all,
Steve GW4ALG