On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 7:00 AM, 44net-request@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-/