Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mg01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id DD74638000095; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 05:13:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Tr4Fs-0001Sf-4U for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:12:00 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Tr4Fr-0001SW-CH for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:11:59 +0000 Received: from nm2-vm0.bt.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com ([212.82.108.92]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Tr4Fm-0007dW-BX for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:11:58 +0000 Received: from [212.82.108.231] by nm2.bt.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Jan 2013 10:11:33 -0000 Received: from [77.238.189.18] by tm4.bt.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Jan 2013 10:11:33 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp818.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Jan 2013 10:11:33 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=s1024; t=1357294293; bh=JCzNrCnGq4Bix8VJbgrgPDKTNkwf+dTwjFpY9r1yXWE=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:Mime-Version:Reply-To:User-Agent:X-Antivirus:X-Antivirus-Status; b=6IW/0qq2Xcy10YsLtPcVgqDzSnxUFLkXq5IgJFMcJqQ1uhils77fp92R7+cYuaw9Cz9ki6wHN3rju8t63nRFE7/FnAH02XbOcXV5H5wXj1yrZ5u9Kh5ce0YLxOCQqNUNQ3ALM+YzzT+Tn9pt1h9vMalEuM7UW/wspqTMpTnsvtE= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 611190.17053.bm@smtp818.mail.ird.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: jsnv_fgVM1nsr3mIQZSd2JGwSSK7P8lCtLud_51n1NtpJWl gwPWi7WGaAQdk3XVFft04_pgnhC7VlUPEDbN3NIJlmsDHcYySCf2mcQBD9Qb sgutr4Ss4CVkGp_nmDwqugpMY8NZj68x_MPDDUf.VisFSghr4.SR3wCOQaeQ UpLPZYQAEiv28tSx7ITqSrelX1kL4fKpvYzir4aytbMNO2dgIvmWqZYcHAyd 8oIPIE_Lu.xOCqrxvTWX6iERBxq3pBE9.zOrGatZenKgxtlWE59mZFqfj2Gp j1QW0TaIgGlf70A6wqkxyeJfp_2S9g8LUyNhcvzH3G_HhpWMI9nvgWu2Dn9I 2vOCy9W0TpBBlc2KpzrTf31UWfIFdnlrLW1G8yk7imPP3kANnEl7XjYjZeq3 p8zv3ki5gQpG_e7nZJrQiwPEKvNZZgv_bsPrCdzLAF5PsdPQ_fQiCj9TZxwG 9i3hCUq3_KOEHSN83mIpkpUZCqbQFEYiqTn0qJeTpMxtCeFPW.N6EBhjulrI - X-Yahoo-SMTP: MKdsdU6swBAxH2g8PCcASiNCWoOpVZv7QWF1s1O18Nys Received: from [127.0.0.1] (m5fra@86.141.137.109 with login) by smtp818.mail.ird.yahoo.com with SMTP; 04 Jan 2013 10:11:30 +0000 UTC From: "M5FRA - Colin" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:11:19 +0000 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: eM_Client/4.0.15145.0 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130103-1, 03/01/2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Chris, "obsessive DX CW only enthusiasts" on 630m? No of course not! You could easily argue that taking up a lot of bandwidth for a voice modes is excessive use of the limited space we have. Then there are the arguments about 'gentle agreements". There is a lot of evidence on the bands to show that there are either 1) very few gentlemen around or 2) nobody cares about such agreements. Then there is the deliberate flouting of license conditions (the law) e.g. running way over the legal power limits usually predicated by 'it is just to level the playing field'. I just cannot see it working and the chaos that chaos would result. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [212.82.108.92 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: d7b5f4c3073c269bca722337a7e80b30 Subject: Re[2]: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------=_MBBDC28CD6-FC35-4587-8F8A-7381A0DFB29D" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNSAFE, HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mtain-mg01.r1000.mx.aol.com ; domain : btinternet.com DKIM : fail x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60c950e6ab416c5d X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none --------=_MBBDC28CD6-FC35-4587-8F8A-7381A0DFB29D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 Chris,=20 "obsessive DX CW only enthusiasts" on 630m? No of course not! You=20 could easily argue that taking up a lot of bandwidth for a voice modes=20 is excessive use of the limited space we have. Then there are the=20 arguments about 'gentle agreements". There is a lot of evidence on the=20 bands to show that there are either 1) very few gentlemen around or 2)=20 nobody cares about such agreements. Then there is the deliberate=20 flouting of license conditions (the law) e.g. running way over the=20 legal power limits usually predicated by 'it is just to level the=20 playing field'. I just cannot see it working and the chaos that chaos woul= d result. Colin - G8FRA/M5FRA m5fra.org.uk ------ Original Message ------ From: "Chris" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Sent: 04/01/2013 08:49:43 Subject: Re: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ? >Hi Colin, >Not too sure what you're getting at. We all have our individual=20 >interests. I hope you're not suggesting the new band should only be=20 >used by obsessive DX CW only enthusiasts? >Chris, G4AYT. > ----- Original Message -----=20 > From:M5FRA - Colin > To:rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 8:24 AM > Subject: Re: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ? >=20 > Just a thought.....when it gets totally washed out with SSB all 24=20 > hours how are you going to clean it out? People in general dont=20 > follow gentlemen's agreements they were not party too.....and "it=20 > doesnt say I cant in the licence".=20 > I fear that, though what you suggest would work, it might encourage=20 > mayhem. >=20 > I agree with Alan. What is wrong with top band for local chats? Or=20 > the acres of unused space on 2m or 70cms? To consider using any form=20 > of SSB on 630m just because it might be technically feasible if sheer=20 > lunacy. IMHO it would kill the band for other modes and the potential=20 > for QRM to other users will be high. As an ex G8 who learned Morse=20 > in spite of a chronic medical condition I would say just get on a do=20 > it. The rewards are well worth the effort. Or maybe effort is a dirty=20 > word? > Colin - G8FRA/M5FRA > m5fra.org.uk >=20 --------=_MBBDC28CD6-FC35-4587-8F8A-7381A0DFB29D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Chris,
 
"obsessive DX CW only enthusiasts" on 630m?  No of course= not!  You could easily argue that taking up a lot of bandwidth= for a voice modes is excessive use of the limited space we have. Then ther= e are the arguments about 'gentle agreements". There is a lot of evide= nce on the bands to show that there are either 1) very few gentlemen around= or 2) nobody cares about such agreements. Then there is the deliberate = flouting of license conditions (the law) e.g. running way over= the legal power limits usually predicated by 'it is just to level the play= ing field'.  I just cannot see it working and= the chaos that chaos would result.
 
Colin - G8FRA/M5FRA
 


------ Original Message ------
From: "Chris" <c.as= hby435@btinternet.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sent: 04/0= 1/2013 08:49:43
Subject: Re: LF: 477 A local SSB chat band ?
Hi Colin,
Not too sure what you're getting at. We= all have our individual interests. I hope you're not suggesting the new= band should only be used by obsessive DX CW only enthusiasts?<= /DIV>
Chris, G4AYT.
----- Original Message -----
= From: M5FRA - Colin
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 8:24= AM
Subject: Re: LF: 477 A local SSB = chat band ?

Just a thought.....when it gets totally washed out with= SSB all 24 hours how are you going to clean it out? People in general dont= follow gentlemen's agreements they were not party too.....and "it doesnt= say I cant in the licence".
I fear that, though what= you suggest would work, it might encourage mayhem.

I agree with Alan. What is wrong with top band for local chats? Or = the acres of unused space on 2m or 70cms? To consider using any form= of SSB on 630m just because it might be technically feasible if sheer luna= cy. IMHO it would kill the band for other modes and the potential for QRM= to other users will be high.  As an ex G8 who learned Morse in= spite of a chronic medical condition I would say just get on a do it. The= rewards are well worth the effort. Or maybe effort is a dirty word?
 
Colin - G8FRA/M5FRA
 

--------=_MBBDC28CD6-FC35-4587-8F8A-7381A0DFB29D--