[RVRC] Fw: W3WAN linking discussion and other items

[asajm at optimum.net]

Lets cut out all this crap....Technical Com. get it fixed.==============================================================----- Original Message -----From: marvin bronstein Date: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 1:22 amSubject: [RVRC] Fw:   W3WAN linking discussion and other itemsTo: RVRC Distribution > 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 > To: RVRC Mailman > 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" > > To: "'Marvin Bronstein'" ; > > Cc: "'RVRC'" > > 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: > > > To: "Marvin Bronstein" > > > Cc: "drew Moore" ; "RVRC" > > > 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" > > >> 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" > > >>> To: "'Craig Saums'" > > >>> Cc: "RVRC" > > >>> 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 >  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> ______________________________________________________________> 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>