> Still trying to keep things stirred up?... So
> predictable. So tedious...Some things will never
> change.

Philip, you're the one who tried to stir things up -- this is *your* thread, after all.

I'm just trying to get Clinton to reduce the chances of it happening again, and to undo the damage done by your heavy handed attempt to censor someone because they dared use "your" style.

As I understand it, Philip, misunderstanding copyright, thought his rights had been violated. Apparently he became discourteous, and a heated email exchange ensued.  That wasn't sufficient, so he posted his pigheaded comment that started this thread.

Apparently, Philip's friends calmed him down and talked him into the apology he posted.  Charles has tried to declare the whole thing "over with", but it is not:

1) The article in question should be restored.

2) Clinton should post the author's rights policy for the site

A true gentleman, in Philip's place, would recognize that the author of the article in question was acting in good faith, if perhaps, not perfect ettiquette, and would recognize that that author has put some work into an article that the members of the site should not be deprived of.

I, for one, would like to read this article now.

What an interesting little tempest you've got here in this teapot.

I will say that as a disinterested observer, I don't find Philip's apology particularly gentlemanly or sincere, especially with the lines "For what its worth" and "Plenty of blame..."

You can't, by the way, copyright a style of discourse.  Or a title, for that matter. Or even the format or structure used in a series of articles.

Also, creative-commons is a license, not a 'right'.  Applying a license to copyrighted material doesn't change rights, it merely extends rights to the licensee.

On the other hand, I can't seem to find eHam's authorship rights policy anywhere on the site.  Perhaps it would be wise to write one up and add it to the FAQ.

The two most common forms of such policy are the very permissive "all rights retained by author" at one extreme and the very restrictive "by posting here you cede all rights to the site" at the other.

The only statements I've been able to find on the eHam site, the copyright notice and the FAQ question about linking/using, imply that eHam's policy is the restrictive one, by the way.

There are several approaches to wireless keyboards, and all are subject to eavesdropping. It's probably not easy to do in an undetectable way, but it should be pretty straightforward to do.

See http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/archive/vuln-dev/2001/04/msg00093.html

for some thoughts

Going HF mobile can be easy.  See

http://www.ae6ip.com/hamsexy/install/

for one example, using a Honda and an ICOM-706.

Once a week, I drive my Honda up into the Santa Cruz mountains, and sit at a vista point overlooking San Francisco Bay for four or five hours. During that time, I

* am NCS for the 05:00 zulu century club 40m ssb late net,
* operate on the 06:00 zulu century club 75m ssb late net,

and

* operate on the 07:00 zulu HHH 40m ssb net.

Between those nets, depending on conditions, I also call CQ.

With a simple hamstick and 100 watts, I get as good reports as I do with a Butternut HF6v at home.  and these days I can't often operate at home because of S9+ noise.  Last night I made 18 contacts on 75 and a couple on 40.

If you want best performance, then concentrate on setting up a good home station; especially the antenna. But if you want to operate HF mobile, you can do an adequate job fairly easily.

QRZ doesn't remove entries from the lookup DB if they ban people -- although they do remove the person's ability to update the QRZ part of their info.

The remove entries if the owner asked, or if Fred feels like deleting them.

> No matter what, use the proper chain of command and
> find out why.

Don't know about other sections, but have found out about northern california.  Word from fairly high up the CoC: "We don't need to."

Northern California ARES groups don't participate in SET.

I agree wholeheartedly that ECs should have level III training before being appointed.

One of the causes not yet mentioned is cognitive dissonance. This is, I suspect, much more common in areas like California, where there is little or no need for emergency communications, then in areas like Florida, where the need is far more common.

We see a lot of dropout here, both at the volunteer level, and above, simply because there's nothing to do.  People get involved thinking they are going to do great things in emcomm, and then discover the reality of training with no activity.  Their expectations don't get met.  In CA, they seem to go one of three ways.  Most drop out.  Most of the rest manage to checkin, but that's about it.  A few become 'hyper-achievers', more commonly known as bulls in the china shop.

I recommend a three-fold path towards alleviating this problem.  First, being a lot more realistic about what amateur EMCOMM entails aand accomplishes.  Second, as already mentioned, mandatory training. Third, ARES should be actively seeking a role that's more in tune with real served agency needs.

WB5HZE,

Hadn't thought about putting them both up.  The Butternut really needs radials to get out though.  Not sure how they'd interact.

Marty

I'm contemplating replacing a Butternut HF6V on the roof of my single story house with a Steppir beam, but I'm concerned because I'm probably only going to be able to get it up a total of 20'.

This is mostly for 40/20, @ 100w.

Thoughts?

The FCC doesn't keep track of "plus" status in the database; so you need some proof that you have it. If you have the proof, such as a copy of your tech plus licenses, showing the date you earned it, take it to the VE session and you'll get credit.

Marty

The regs require that the ID be in "plain language". There is no formal requirement that it be given phonetically, or usng a particular phonetic alphabet, or even by saying each letter seperately.

If your call were K9HOG, you could id as Kilo Niner Hog and it would be OK with the FCC.

If you want the other station to recognize your call correctly, though, you might think better of it.

Don't forget amateurs aren't allowed to use encryption in transmissions, so every packet you send would be snoopable.

I wouldn't worry too much about the strain that LoTW is putting on the ARRL budget.  It's very badly understaffed for what it is attempting to accomplish.  (It's a part time assignment for a very small number of hq employees, I've been told.)

Anyway, I use it -- I 100% QSL, cards, LoTW and eQSL.

I've uploaded 1381 QSOs and have 33 confirmed QSLs -- half from last november's ARRL ssb contest, and the other half are from the US.

I don't know if it's living up to the press, but it's definitely living up to my expectations.