| |
N0KFQ > PACKET 07.04.16 01:41l 110 Lines 4297 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 89870_N0KFQ
Read: GUEST
Subj: RE: Fwd:Re:Is this what packet is now?
Path: IW8PGT<IZ3LSV<IW0QNL<JH4XSY<JE7YGF<XE1FH<VK6ZRT<N0KFQ
Sent: 160406/2331Z 89870@N0KFQ.#SWMO.MO.USA.NA BPQ1.4.65
Nope, not trying to hurt Packet Radio at all.. trying to squelch the
"packet cops"... and that is GOOD for packet radio.
Stay out of it? He wrote his message as a "bulletin". So, it was addressed
to everyone... and that includes me.
It does not matter if your opinion is the same as his. It only means that
you are BOTH wrong.
7+ files were originated for use over packet. And, EVERYTHING that packet
does is more easily and better done over the Internet. So, that is no reason
for keeping it off of packet.
What Bradd is doing has nothing to do with "encouraging good operating
practice". Bradd is trying to force his preferences upon the entire packet
activity.
You would do well to pay attention to "what K.O. says".
This has nothing to do with illegal content.
The FCC makes the rules.. not Bradd nor you. Any size message is allowed.
The 7+ files (in this case) were small files manageable by VHF. The RF User
would know after one or two files if it was something his equipment could
handle. No problem there.
Wrong.. the packet network can easily handle such files (AXIP). Proof of
that is that it has already finished sending the files world-wide.
And, as I mentioned before, neither you nor Bradd make the rules..
Here is what both you and Bradd should do. Learn to use the "Reject Filter"
in your bbs. Then you can keep the unwanted files out of YOUR bbs and the
rest of us can handle them, or not, according to EACH sysop's preference.
73, K.O. n0kfq
N0KFQ @ N0KFQ.#SWMO.MO.USA.NA
E-mail: kohiggs@gmail.com
Using Outpost Ver 3.1.0 c41
-----Original Message-----
From: N0KFQ
To: N0KFQ@N0KFQ
Sent: 4/6/2016 17:59
Subject: Fwd:RE: Re:Is this what packet is now?
Original Message:
R:160405/2203Z 3119@N9LYA.#SIN.IN.USA.NA
Wow endorsing the death of Packet Radio are we K.O.
You would best be served to stay out of it as well.
First you criticize someone for their opinion and it is mine as well . That their pointing out that packet is no place for large 7+ files of anything readily available over the internet...
Then you redirect this bull and completely change its To and @ Fields.
All Bradd is doing is trying to encourage good operating practices..
Sheesh. Maybe its time Packets regrowth had some mentoring... and not just posting 108 7+ files .. and having complacency , "well ok what ever K.O. says must be the only way."
Besides what happens when someone just does as you say THEY PLEASE and posts illegal content.. Are you endorsing that as well.
Copy right...
Porn...
etc
And no the sender HAD no legit reason.. 7+ messages should never be sent as BULLETINS..
Now if he knew a ham that wanted it and sent it as PMAIL maybe a few messages would be ok... NOT 108. But there are better ways to disseminate Binaries over packet... REQFIL for one. Again goes to a single user not the whole world to plug up Packet even on VHF let alone HF these would take a while, or drop the whole net to a pile of pooo.. A lot of work.. and headaches for a network not capable of supporting silly acts..
But stand knowing NO 7+ Type files will be supported by this BBS. And I am furthest form a packet cop then you would ever know. I reject stations on a last resort basis.. same for 7+ if they would not get out of hand I would probably let them pass on AXIP/UHF 9600 baud.. But no.. Not happening..
So no your statement(S) is/are non sequitur...
73 Jerry N9LYA
-----Original Message-----
From: N0KFQ
To: PACKET@WW
Sent: 4/5/2016 13:45
Subject: Re:Is this what packet is now?
R:160405/1746Z 1585@W9ABA.#WCWI.WI.USA.NOAM BPQK1.4.65
R:160405/1745Z 11980@N9PMO.#SEWI.WI.USA.NOAM BPQ6.0.12
R:160405/1745Z @:N6RME.#NCA.CA.USA.NOAM #:31636 [El Dorado] $:89731_N0KFQ
R:160405/1745Z 89731@N0KFQ.#SWMO.MO.USA.NA BPQ1.4.65
It just really doesn't matter what you think about it. You would better
serve the packet community if you would more carefully mind your own
business.
If the sender of Easyterm had a reason for sending that over packet,
then that is his business.. and he DOES NOT need your permission.
I thought that we had rid ourselves of the "packet cops", but it looks
like they are crawling back out of the woodwork.
Best thing for you to do is just "butt out".
73, K.O. n0kfq
[End of Message #3115 from N0KFQ]
[End of Message #89869 from N0KFQ]
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
