Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[aprssig] The final word: W0APR

Steve Dimse steve at dimse.com
Wed Jan 30 20:36:46 UTC 2008


On Jan 30, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Earl Needham wrote:

>        Thanks for the info, Jim.  Interesting situation, and  
> completely sad and unnecessary about the two "perps".

I've known Jim for a long time, and while I'd like to believe he is  
right, I believe that any dispute has two sides and I'm not going to  
call anyone a perp based on another person's say-so. It sounds like  
there is a power struggle between different factions within the  
organization, which means there are two sides with arguments they feel  
are correct. One side choses to air dirty laundry in public, the other  
does not. That does not make either side right or wrong.

I hesitate to write this, because the very LAST thing I want is for  
there to be more discussion of this on the sig, but I do believe it is  
wrong to jump to a conclusion after only hearing one side of any  
story. The FCC has only said they need to look at this further, they  
have not said there was any fraud committed. I suspect in a case like  
this they would say a tie goes to the previous license holder, so even  
if the application is denied that does not make the applicants wrong.  
If the FCC does pull the applicants' operator licenses as Jim clearly  
hopes, then, and only then, would I believe they committed fraud. And  
even then, I don't think this is the place for a victor to crow about  
it.

I think both parties should lay out their case before the FCC, NOT  
here on the SIG. Anyone that is interested can read about this on the  
FCC web site. It will probably get picked up by the amateur news  
services, they love dirt like this.

Lets go back to trashing people with long paths. Or maybe it time yet  
again for someone to argue that APRS itself breaks FCC rules??? You  
know, something productive!

Steve K4HG




More information about the aprssig mailing list