On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 7:00 AM, <44net-request(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> wrote:
Client modems will scan for the three frequencies in
use by the three
sectors, and connect to whichever cell site is available.
(Generally one
you have pointed your antenna at.)
Hehehe, then its not "cellular" is it.. hehe, it's going to connect to the
only signal it can see - the AP (sorry, cell site) that it's pointed at.
Far be it for Steve Write, a newcomer to the field of
packet radio,
who hasn't even successfully built and connected his own TCP/IP node,
to embarrass himself on a mailing list by correcting the terminology
used by someone with more technical experience in the field than he.
No, that wouldn't be right would it? After all he hasn't even finished
reading all those unwritten Wiki's - and corrected them, loudly and at
great personal sacrifice - since newcomers are a fount of knowledge
and wisdom about the errors and omissions in the documentation by
those who have gone before them.
Hehehe, no I said "point taken and conceded", you read back and see! I
AGREED with the man, AND conceded the point.
Actually, I had allocated a 44/30 25 years ago, ran NOS over laggy 1200bd
AFSK links on a 386 PC with one floppy, and my Internet connection was
VT100 unix shell until I was allowed to run a SLIP link, so I am no
newcomer, as you incorrectly state as fact. Egg on face again!
Actually, hehehe there is also the situation where I have connected many
many TCP/IP units in remote areas over wireless links, but the professional
equipment I use is not really supported by the piecemeal approach so far
with the 44net crowd - I hope to change that. What do you hope to achieve?
Your sarcasm regarding the wiki is also noted. Why you might attack me
about this is very surprising. Quite frankly, there was nothing of value
in the wiki before I pointed out the glaringly obvious fact, and now that
is changing fast, and it will keep changing until the path forward for all
people is abundantly clear.
I think you would just like to take the opportunity to be abusive. I
address the issue concisely, learn from what is said, retract when
incorrect, yet you evade all logic and pursue your ad hominem approach. I
offer regret for offence taken, but you offer more offence?
I don't think you are part of the solution, or part of any solution. For
anything. 8-/