[RVRC] Fw: W3WAN linking discussion and other items

Tue Feb 26 01:22:26 EST 2013

RVRC members,

Please understand that this ''discussion'' is not meant to be a personal attack upon any members.  

I am a chartering member when we re-established  the Raritan Valley Radio Club back around 1973.  That makes me a member of approximately 40 years!

In that span of time I also served as club President for some period of that time.  In the re-chartering of RVRC the purpose of the club was to have fun with a very exciting hobby, Ham Radio! 

 To that end we fostered many activities such as HF contesting, field day, picnics, field trips of interest (visits to meaningful places like ARRL Hqs. and Salem Nuclear

 generating facility as it was being constructed). We had accomplished hams deliver technical presentations and our own technical ''sessions'' to spread knowledge among our

 members.  It was camaraderie, fellowship, learning, common interest activities because we included all members in the discussions and plans.  There was and still remains only

 a minimum requirement to attend meetings because not everyone can attend mid-week/night meetings that start late (to allow members travelling in from afar) and ended late.
But we always included all active members in the discussions and planning of activities.

This medium, the internet, gives RVRC members the opportunity to ''weigh-in'' on club matters and activities and we always should include the comments and wishes of members even for those when it is not possible for them to attend.  We are a club, the purpose for which is inclusive not exclusive.  The mere fact that those who can not be present at our monthly business meetings have no means nor are given the opportunity to voice their opinions; this presents disenfranchisement.  Decisions are made, then, at sparsely attended meetings by only a small portion of the membership exclusive of the opinions and suggestions of the majority.

If the majority of members voice their opinion that they do not want this or that, why then push the matter against those wishes?  Why allow a simple quorum at our business meeting ''hijack'' the wishes of a majority?  But we can only discern what the wishes really are unless we include all the members in good standing into that discussion.  This can not be accomplished if limited to the one meeting each month unless, before commencing on any bold project, we discuss it first and this forum is a great way to do this.

Once again, my thrust on this subject is inclusion by addressing all members.  Does it slow down the process? YES it does but that is part and parcel to what ham radio is all about; we are not some business/corporation or utility..........we formed a club for mutual enjoyment of a hobby and it should never become an over-bearing obligation!  Once again, we all have jobs, family and important obligations outside of this activity which should never, ever be impaired by club activities.

I have been part of many projects and activities involving RVRC over my 40+ year involvement but I have never witnessed such a lack-luster period.  We really need to involve all our members and return to that spark of interest in ham radio activities. There's a great deal to ''discuss'' on that issue as well but it can not be limited to the one meeting each month; discuss it via this medium which will give every member their opportunity.

What ever has transpired to this point is done and finished but it is imperative that going forward includes every member's opportunity to weigh-in on how the club should go forward.  After all, the ''club'' is it's membership, the club is not an entity in and of itself!

As for our UHF repeater, since having been linked-in full time to the WAN network, that repeater is all but unavailable to RVRC member's local use.  If there is any hope of generating local RVRC club use it will not develop while there is so much ''traffic'' on the WAN network.*  There simply has to be some way to unlink for local rag-chew!

Marvin, K2VHW
* ''traffic'' does not imply form messages but voice communications.  Net operations where form messages are ''handled'' is termed........''message traffic''.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: w2iu at hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN linking discussion and other items
From: cwsaums at aol.com
CC: kb2vrm at gmail.com
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:28:01 -0500

Dennis
With all due respect to you and Marv and Drew and others.

My point that we will need to discuss this topic at a meeting is because that is where we can vote on issues such as this.  Discussing this in a civil manner via email is OK but the ultimate decision is at a business meeting per our by-laws.  We do not currently have provisions for email voting except in the case of membership and general officer elections. At least that is my understanding from reading the posted version of our by-laws on the W2QW.org website.

There is no intent to disenfranchise anybody but the by-laws call for business votes at a regular or special meeting.  
If that rule constitutes a disenfranchisement, then that is also the club membership's rule - not mine or any other individual's.  

Unfortunately this has gotten personal again.  I don't feel it is good email etiquette to send full mailing list emails to specific concerns.  I don't agree that responding to emails in large bold type (email yelling) is appropriate in any context.  I would be fired at work for responding in this manner.

I responded directly to Drew's original query about linking control codes but it was then re-broadcast to everyone.  Anybody can call me or email me directly if they want to discuss a concern or suggest an idea.  Anybody in the club can email the tech committee using the repeater at w2qw.njpaasterisk.org email address if there is a repeater problem.  I tried to respond in a professional and open manner.  If others take offense to my approach I will apologize to the group if so directed by the president.  I have spent significant time presenting things about our update and repair projects at meetings as well as on the weekly social nets.  I am trying to provide information in an open manner - not hide anything or disenfranchise anybody

By the way, all of these changes (linking, budgeted purchases that are immediate opportunities etc) are first discussed with the executive board members and then implemented if things need to happen between regular meetings.  Nobody is going 'rogue' here.

Distribution of the control operator codes is not a good idea for many reasons and I would hope the membership understands that.  
Not everybody can be the control operator without causing chaos.  That was my initial response to Drew.

I guess we (referring to the technical committee here) may be trying to make things better when not everyone sees it that way.  As I responded to several earlier posts, if the club as a body votes to change the linking with the other network or if the club decides they would rather have no traffic at all on the machine then that is what the technical committee will implement.  Unfortunately this will happen at a meeting - according to the by-laws.  The shed topic or relocating somewhere else is in the past and I prefer to move forward trying to complete the project.  If that is a sore point, it is probably something I cannot fix.  Votes go the way they go.  The technical committee is just trying move the initiatives forward.

One final item.  The comment that I made to Marv about using the power switch or the VFO was not meant as a wise guy remark.  It was in the context of people that use a scan function to monitor all day long.  I know that I put out my call everyday on the 440 machine, including multiple times this morning, between 0815 and 0900 on the way to work.  No contact from anybody either on WAN or from our own members monitoring all day long by various means.  If people don't want to talk to me or they think I am a jerk, that is there right to not respond.  I use a scanner too for fire department monitoring.  If there is a channel that is not interesting because it it busy or transmitting stuff I don't care about, I lock it out, skip it over or power off.  Is that so offensive?  If it is then I am sorry and I will say so to Marv when I see him.

Bottom line, if the club members wish to have me removed as technical committee chair, for whatever reason, then please submit the recommendation to the president as he controls all committees and I will respectfully step down.

Thank you

Craig Saums
AC2FE

Please note: copy to the president

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Kopecky <w2iu at hotmail.com>
To: RVRC Mailman <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 11:42 am
Subject: [RVRC] FW: W3WAN

I have edited my comments in reply to his posting, as there was some extraneous 
material, not pertinent to the discussion, but relevant to Marv and myself. 73 
all,Dennis,W2IU
 From: w2iu at hotmail.com
To: marvbrons at verizon.net
Subject: RE: [RVRC] W3WAN
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:22:27 -0500

Marv, I have to agree that you are right, and that we need to keep all the 
channels of a discussion open. After all, its how I perceive we got into a 
financial bind, as far as I'm concerned, last Winter, with the shed issues. The 
club limited it to those who showed up to a meeting, and a Winter meeting at 
that, which would limit the possibilities of a large turnout, myself included, 
from attending back then. Crucial decisions were made that should've been put 
out to the entire membership. Later, it was apparent that there was a 
significant number of people who would've thought to find a new site, instead of 
going thru what has now turned out to be a somewhat slowed project.

 I am sorry to see that much of RVRC has become a rptr. club only, and no longer 
is a broadly-based radio club, as I think (I wasn't there in the beginning) it 
was once thought out to be. We spend so much time discussing rptr. problems, and 
hamfest needs and updates, that there is little time for anything else of a 
radio nature, whether it be dx, or code learning/practice (as an extreme 
example), or even anything HF, and VHF/UHF, outside of the rptrs., being 
discussed. I've lost my "verv" to listen to  just rptr. issues, and especially 
in Winter, that drive home in the dark and cold, after a meeting, maybe I just 
got too old for it (sic.).

Anyhow, keep pushing beyond those who want to limit the discussion, by requiring 
one to be present at a meeting, and that's the only way its going to be decided: 
that's wrong ! Small issues, even with the financial limits put into the revised 
Const. and By-Laws, can, and should be decided at a meeting: beyond that it 
ought to go to the full membership. Its unfortunate if that is perceived as 
slowing things down too much, and the club might miss out on a "needed" 
opportunity, but those who wish to use email as their forum, should not lose out 
on that opportunity either.

73, always,
Dennis

> From: marvbrons at verizon.net
> To: kb2vrm at gmail.com; cwsaums at aol.com
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 23:28:45 -0500
> CC: rvrc at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
> 
> RVRC,
> Let's include ALL the RVRC members in this ''discussion''.  We all know that 
> it is not always possible for members to make a week-night meeting; people 
> are out earning a living or caring for family and ham radio should NEVER 
> take precedent over those other matters
>   Many members who SHOULD have a voice are left out because we have chosen 
> to ''discuss this ONLY at the meeting''.  Discussing this via this medium at 
> least provides the rest of the members with a ''clue'' about what's 
> happening in RVRC.
> 
> A significant problem is that, it seems, a few members who DO make the 
> meetings and have weighed-in on these repeater projects are the primary ones 
> desiring to have these features.
> 
> I am NOT proposing that these ''experiments'' must stop or that we simply 
> MUST totally discontinue any ''linked-in'' operation BUT, that, a better 
> method must be found to give RVRC members the ability to disconnect from the 
> ''link'' so those of us who PAY DUES and support these repeaters can have 
> ''FIRST CHOICE'' of use on our own schedules and not determined by heavy use 
> from a system far removed from our area and membership.
> 
> How about having a ''normal'' mode not linked and those who want to be 
> ''linked'' for their period of use can do so by engaging that ''link''?
> It seems that those with the ability to do the ''linking/unlinking'' are 
> those who want this feature since not many others are making use of it.
> 
> The WAN system is very active and there is absolutely no value to the 
> majority of RVRC members having to either listen to conversations between 
> stations that our members have no reason nor common interest to talk to or 
> must eliminate it from their ''scan'' list on their radios.
> 
> I don't appreciate the attitude that if we don't like it we can use the 
> ''off'' switch or VFO dial..........WE OWN THE REPEATER and we should be 
> able to have access to it WHEN EVER WE HAVE THE DESIRE TO DO SO!
> 
> 
> I can safely say that I am NOT the only RVRC member who feels 
> ''disenfranchised'' from use of our UHF repeater.  Let all the members 
> weight-in on this issue, not just the few who are able to make the meetings.
> 
> 73
> Marvin K2VHW
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Christiansen" <kb2vrm at gmail.com>
> To: "'Marvin Bronstein'" <marvbrons at verizon.net>; <cwsaums at aol.com>
> Cc: "'RVRC'" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:14 PM
> Subject: RE: [RVRC] W3WAN
> 
> 
> > RVRC ,
> > Hello everyone, I don't really know where to start with this. It seems we
> > have a problem through the entire club when I read through the emails that
> > are going back and forth. I'm wondering if that is the problem or if there
> > is just a small group having issues with some area of our club.  My 
> > opinion
> > of being connected to the WAN system is that it is probably favorable to 
> > the
> > club in general, do I personally use it? No I don't but it isn't for any 
> > of
> > the reasons in any of these emails, my reason is that I don't have 440 in 
> > my
> > car and besides getting on the RVRC net once a week my radios in the house
> > don't get used as I have too many other more important things going on. 
> > That
> > being said, the reasons we have all of these really cool repeater and
> > technical things going on is that our Tech Committee guys (and I believe 
> > the
> > membership in general) are trying to come up with ways to make the club
> > better, increase membership (which means more money in the treasury), keep 
> > a
> > good user base on the repeaters, and for all intents and purposes make the
> > club grow and thrive in a horribly depressed economy. If members really 
> > want
> > to "help" the club let's look at the good things happening and if there is
> > an issue that is carrying along with those good things then we can discuss
> > them at a meeting and decide there whether or not we want to continue with
> > said "good things". We keep trying to come up with great fund raising 
> > ideas
> > and different ways to make our club more fun and solvent. I believe the
> > bottom line in a radio club (such as ours) is to have good quality radio
> > repeaters and members who get on them and use them, that is how we have
> > gotten to this point so far. I know when myself and a number of others 
> > were
> > on the air most of the day, every day our membership was busy taking in 
> > new
> > members at every meeting.
> > On a completely different note, do we want to stay connected to the
> > WAN? Well let's discuss it at a meeting. Yes, I think this should be
> > discussed at a meeting, if the other "70 members" have a legitimate gripe
> > with what's happening in the club I believe they should actually get out 
> > to
> > a meeting once a month and bring up their thoughts in front of the group.
> > From that point we all can have the facts put onto the table in front of 
> > us
> > and make a logical and informed decision on whatever issue we happen to be
> > talking about at that time. When a barrage of emails are sent out with
> > facts, half facts, and sometimes complete misunderstandings of the issues 
> > at
> > hand members who would otherwise make a logical and informed decision on
> > these items are then swayed to the opinion of the email sender. I would 
> > ask
> > everyone not to start emailing the club, tech committee, etc. etc. for 
> > every
> > little thing that they want to personally change about the club, these
> > things (for the most part) are decided by the membership at the meetings.
> > Maybe it wasn't decided last meeting or the meeting before that but
> > generally they have been brought up in front of the body and voted on 
> > which
> > is why they happen. Let's not use this email reflector as a weapon to 
> > cause
> > grief and strife to the governing body and committees of the club, this 
> > may
> > sound like a terrible thing to say but whether you believe it or not it is
> > the truth because I've been dealing with this behind the scenes for way to
> > long and am getting weary of it. We're all friends here and need to behave
> > that way.
> > On the issues that have been brought up about the WAN system I think we 
> > all
> > know that broadcasting is not permitted and to bring that up about a 
> > linked
> > system is just trying to throw gasoline onto a small fire. I think the
> > decisions should be made at the meeting; but to look at the thoughts that
> > have been brought up here without getting too in depth, I know 2 meters is
> > very limited in its coverage at this time and that will be changing soon.
> > I'm aware that 440 is our main machine right now and to have it much 
> > busier
> > than it has been in the past and "not available" to make as many local 
> > calls
> > may be an issue. That being said, 2 meters will be online at its normal
> > standard soon and maybe having that AND a nice wide area network will be a
> > good thing for the club. I think at this point we need to
> > step back and look at the big picture. What will make the club continue to
> > be a viable, fun, and informative place to be a member? Is what we're 
> > doing
> > the way?, go back to old ways that didn't work?, or maybe come up with new
> > fresh ideas. Whatever the direction should be we need to do it together 
> > not
> > by trying to undermine the efforts of others in the club who are honestly
> > and diligently working (very hard I might add) at keeping everything 
> > running
> > up to speed and coming up with new ideas to make things better for all of
> > us. Finally, I'm going to repeat myself, I don't want to
> > hear any silly back-biting comments through this email forum. If there are
> > problems with what I am saying, bring them to the meeting and we will
> > discuss them calmly, looking at the facts good or bad from all sides of 
> > the
> > argument. Then... we will make a decision as to what we ALL want to do on
> > whatever the topic is. There aren't any of us in the club who are always
> > right about everything, so let's remember that (I'm trying to). The bottom
> > line here is we have a great club with a smart capable membership with the
> > potential to do great things, let's all get behind each other to make 
> > things
> > better, not tear things down. Please think about these things.
> > 73,   Mike, KB2VRM  President RVRC
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net] 
> > On
> > Behalf Of Marvin Bronstein
> > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:19 AM
> > To: cwsaums at aol.com
> > Cc: RVRC
> > Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
> >
> > Craig, members,
> >
> > On the first ''issue'' the 'complaint' was from casual users on the WAN
> > system.  But this goes far beyond ''breaking-in'' to a net.  We, as a 
> > result
> > of being full-time linked, cannot utilize the repeater we own and 
> > subscribe
> > for.  Here we have a wide-area coverage repeater that is not readily 
> > usable
> > because of casual use from an area far removed from our user area.
> > My question would be, should we be subsidizing an extension of the WAN
> > network or is this repeater we own and operate there for our uses?
> > I am fully cognizant of net operation protocol and it is not a question of
> > barging in on a working ''net''; but when they're operating their ''net'' 
> > it
> > totally removes the use of our repeater from our membership use!
> > Another, but lesser, factor is that while we are linked into WAN system we
> > are literally ''broadcasting''.  We are not in any way ''communicating''
> > with the users of the WAN system yet we are ''broadcasting'' their
> > communications!  Broadcasting is in violation of FCC part 97 rules.  I 
> > know
> > there are many repeaters that are ''linked'' full time but those are all
> > ''users'' of those ''systems''**; we, here in our N.J. area, are not 
> > ''users
> > of the WAN system''.  Instead, we are prevented from accessing our 
> > repeater
> > for our ''local'' uses.
> >
> > I feel we should be including all members in this discussion of linking 
> > into
> > the WAN system and not limit it to only the minimum quorum that shows up 
> > at
> > our monthly meetings!  Let's hear how the other 70 members feel about this
> > issue.
> >
> > Marvin, K2VHW
> > **Example; W2ABC is linked to many repeaters full-time but they are all
> > associated clubs of the DISNEY family and we do, indeed, 
> > inter-communicate.
> >    another example is the NJ NET system within New Jersey where all those
> > repeaters are used by their members to inter-communicate.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <cwsaums at aol.com>
> > To: "Marvin Bronstein" <marvbrons at verizon.net>
> > Cc: "drew Moore" <drumor at optonline.net>; "RVRC" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
> > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:39 AM
> > Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
> >
> >
> >> Marv
> >> Did the "system in use" complaint happen during an organized net or was 
> >> it
> >
> >> during a personal QSO?  If this happened during a check-in net then I
> >> could understand the comment.  If there is a net running, it is
> >> appropriate for the net control station to make the comment and the
> >> breaking station should wait for a check-in call or use another 
> >> frequency.
> >
> >> Of course if there is an emergency, then a break in is appropriate and
> >> this action would be honored by any net control station.
> >>
> >> If this situation occurs again during a personal or small group QSO then
> >> you need to record the date, time and call sign of the station making the
> >> "system in use" comment.   W3WAN traffic is recorded.  The net managers
> >> will handle inappropriate monopolizing of the system with the individuals
> >> involved and may go as far as blocking their use of the system.
> >>
> >> That said, our members have to recognize that we are working in a
> >> networked environment now and courtesy should always be shown even if the
> >> station is far away.  Personally, I find it is kinda fun to know what the
> >> weather is doing in Pittsburgh or Emmitsburgh MD.
> >>
> >> The club can discuss this further at one of our meetings.  The purpose of
> >> joining W3WAN was to replace our previous local net and to give our
> >> members broader exposure.  Lets try this out until the next meeting at
> >> least.
> >>
> >> For now, lets put this on hold.  It isn't practical to resolve this by
> >> email.
> >>
> >> Please note that the repeaters should not be arbitrarily shut down using
> >> the user controls.  If the machines are hung up for some reason then OK, 
> >> a
> >
> >> user can shut it down and then immediately notify the tech committee.
> >> Busy traffic or a distant irrelevant QSO is not "hung up".  If a member
> >> doesn't want to hear the busy machine then use the VFO or the Power
> >> Button.
> >>
> >> This message is being sent to the full email list since the previous
> >> related mail was broadcast.
> >>
> >> The purpose of the tech committee email contact is not for these general
> >> discussions but instead to handle specific problems requiring a control
> >> operator's intervention.  If there is a repeater emergency or some type 
> >> of
> >
> >> failure then we want to be notified. Tech committee notifications are not
> >> intended for the full mailing list.  It will generate too much traffic 
> >> and
> >
> >> we cannot possibly respond to every comment added to the email chain.
> >> Please do not rebroadcast mail to the reapeater at w2qw.njpaasterisk.org
> >> mailbox
> >>
> >> Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support
> >>
> >> Craig Saums
> >> AC2FE
> >> Technical Committee Chairman
> >>
> >> 73
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:46 PM, "Marvin Bronstein" <marvbrons at verizon.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I also feel that our UHF repeater has been ''hijacked by being 
> >>> constantly
> >
> >>> linked and constantly active with W3WAN traffic that is absolutely
> >>> useless to us.
> >>> We have very limited use of our UHF repeater, several times when someone
> >>> attempts to use our repeater we get complaints from W3WAN users that the
> >>> system is in use!!!
> >>>
> >>> We really should have some USER method of temporarily disconnecting so
> >>> that we can use our own system locally!
> >>>
> >>> 73
> >>> Marvin, K2VHW
> >>>
> > ............................................................................
> > ....................................................................
> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "drew Moore" <drumor at optonline.net>
> >>> To: "'Craig Saums'" <cwsaums at aol.com>
> >>> Cc: "RVRC" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
> >>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:17 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Craig that's fine. Today the W3WAN has been running a Skywarn net for
> >>>> the
> >>>> past 5 hours. Subsequently the repeater is not available increasingly
> >>>> more
> >>>> and more to local traffic.
> >>>>
> >>>> 73
> >>>> Drew
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Craig Saums [mailto:cwsaums at aol.com]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:07 PM
> >>>> To: drew Moore
> >>>> Subject: Re: W3WAN
> >>>>
> >>>> The agreement with the net manager from W3WAN was that we would be a
> >>>> semi permanent link. We are unlinked during our nets, maintenance and 
> >>>> as
> >>>> needed if the WAN side has long nets that might interfere with our 440
> >>>> machine.  At this point, we can unlink and relink to W3WAN but it is 
> >>>> not
> >
> >>>> a
> >>>> user function. This is a control operator function as it is currently
> >>>> implemented.
> >>>>
> >>>> I hope this helps.
> >>>>
> >>>> Craig
> >>>> AC2FE
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 2:35 PM, drew Moore <drumor at optonline.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Is there a user code to disengage/engage the W3WAN from the 442.250
> >>>>> repeater?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 73,
> >>>>> Drew
> >>>>
> >>>> ______________________________________________________________
> >>>> RVRC mailing list
> >>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/rvrc
> >>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >>>> Post: mailto:RVRC at mailman.qth.net
> >>>>
> >>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> >>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > RVRC mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/rvrc
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:RVRC at mailman.qth.net
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
> > 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> RVRC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/rvrc
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:RVRC at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
RVRC mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/rvrc
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:RVRC at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html