Kurt,
Again, respectfully, let me address each of your points here Kurt:
On Sun, 2016-08-14 at 01:00 -0700, KD7JYK DM09 wrote:
> Yeah... Someone calls the ANONYMOUS tip line, a friend of a friend of
> a friend from out of town using a barrowed phone and fake name, just
> to have someone in a position to do so POLITELY check on it as their
> job requires...
>
> Probably a LOT more dangerous than Joe Ham going to the front door
> introducing themselves with callsign, handing out some ARRL pamphlets
> and leaving a contact number... Guess I didn't think that through AT
> ALL!
I believe you are being sarcastic here, and using that sarcasm to
support your original point-- that of using an anonymous tip line as a
way of getting additional leverage on a grow operation in order to get
it shut down. This method, you appear to purport, is guaranteed to
raise the entire RFI incident to the highest level possible as quickly
as possible in a single step. Not a good problem solving technique in
my book at all Kurt.
While your method does address one concern I have about RFI hunting,
that of being too visible, your purported method of solving RFI issues
almost certainly will get all involved into contentious mode instantly,
again, not a good problem solving method in my book, and sometimes
dangerous.
I have knocked on many doors in the past few years looking for RFI, and
in only one case was I worried, (nothing untoward happened there
anyway), the RFI just ended a week later. Perhaps I got lucky.
Nothing apparently dangerous, or bad has come from any of my RFI hunting
so far, (and I have done a lot over the past few years), but someday it
might, and that keeps me careful. It also keeps me angry at the FCC for
so badly failing at RFI issues.
I never RFI hunt alone anymore, unless I am in the car exclusively, and
I never enter a home, period.
For the most part I have had good relations with all involved when it
comes to RFI. Those exceptions are when I begin to consider
increasingly intrusive measures for RFI prevention. I then balance the
goal vs. the reward ratio, based on that evaluation, I act accordingly.
My goal is to not crush pot growers, not to involve the police, not to
up the ante, not to make some statement, but to end my RFI as quickly,
and as safely as possible in the shortest possible time frame.
So, again respectfully Kurt, I think you are dead wrong in suggesting a
method that escalates to police level involvement instantly as the
single step in the process of solving an RFI problem. Give your RFI
generator lots of little places he or she can end the RFI generation
process at.
If you give the person, twenty chances to stop generating RFI instead of
none as you suggest, you get twenty more chances of ending your RFI
problem, than if you just go nuclear in one step.
At least that is what I have found to be effective, and that is my goal,
to end the RFI issue I am working on in a positive way for myself.
On Sun, 2016-08-14 at 01:00 -0700, KD7JYK DM09 wrote:
> Just because we're Hams doesn't mean we are the heavy or have to put
> ourselves at any risk at all. The two or three suggestions I've seen
> on how to approach this are about as terrifying and as foolish as a
> position one can place themselves in aside from jokingly putting plans
> to join ISIS on their facebook page and marking it "public" then using
> the ATM at the local federal office to get cash for a one-way plane
> ticket while discussing their plans loudly on a cell phone passing
> through the metal detectors during an INTERPOL convention and making
> disparaging comments about the Pope.
> OK, bad analogy, that'll just get you a good talking to and a free
> lunch, this pot growing RFI is real!
You are correct that was one of the worst analogies I have ever seen for
RFI hunting in my life.
Yes, pot growing is real, and it is legal. So your purported solution
simply will not work in in some states. Get used to this, legal Pot
will spread like wildfire, and soon Pot growing will be legal in most
states, not just a few, as it is today... This will guarantee RFI
issues initially...
So-- ignoring the analogy you made, we end up with your thinking that
the suggestion of friendly contact is a bad idea...
In some cases you are correct, that is why I take time and think about
what I am doing when it comes to RFI solutions, not just shooting from
the hip.
For the most part, I have found the growers to be surprised they could
be located so easily, and happy to quiet down the RFI because they don't
want to be located.
As I mentioned in my first post, there is a chance of retribution from a
grower, but I am not going to live in fear of this, I am however going
to keep it in mind. I am going to progress forward attempting to solve
my RFI issues in a non confrontational way.
On Sun, 2016-08-14 at 01:00 -0700, KD7JYK DM09 wrote:
> The systems to handle such things are already in place, yet, for some
> reason, most Hams are Hell bent an [sic] ignoring them, avoiding them,
> almost violently opposing them, in this forum, and somehow taking the
> Cap'n Hero approach to handling it themselves because they hear a
> light bulb in their radio and feel they have to march up the door of a
> potentially whacked out and well armed dealer/grower/user/annoyed
> person to discuss it with them at length.
You are confusing the issue again here Kurt, this is not about Pot
growing, it is about RFI, and how to fix RFI.
What you are attempting to do is to find a loophole in the system that
allows you to gain leverage on a grow operation, and then take it down
in order to solve your RFI issue.
You are in essence, attacking a different problem, and hoping the
solution of one problem, corrects the other problem. I always deal with
the issue at hand only-- RFI, and RFI only. Nothing else, it is not my
business what someone is doing, as long as it does not trammel my
rights.
On Sun, 2016-08-14 at 01:00 -0700, KD7JYK DM09 wrote:
> Some stoner MIGHT be violating city, county, state and federal laws,
> at the very least, it's having a negative impact on at least one
> person, but, IT'S OK! We're HAMS! WE'LL take care of it cuz there's
> some sort of inapplicable moral "high road" we can kinda sorta maybe
> but not really apply to this situation, because we're HAMS 'n' junk,
> and, you know, Hams take care of this kinda stuff...
Perhaps for you, it is taking some sort of high road, for me-- I just
want my RFI gone.
Again respectfully Kurt, you are assigning a lot motivation to another
person, all via assumption, and all without even discussing it with that
person. You then draw conclusions from your assumptions, and believing
you are right. For me, that is a lot of unvalidated assumptions to be
drawing conclusions from.
On Sun, 2016-08-14 at 01:00 -0700, KD7JYK DM09 wrote:
> Horses--t. Use the system designed for, and put in place for,
> including protecting yourself from, such things.
The current RFI system is not functioning, again, you are solving a
different problem than RFI... All I care about here is RFI.
On Sun, 2016-08-14 at 01:00 -0700, KD7JYK DM09 wrote:
> I'm envisioning a bunch of do-gooder hams sporting capes of moldy bath
> towels and ginormous butt-chins with a BaoFeng scotch taped to their
> dirty underoos doing the Andy Kaufman Mighty Mouse routine. (check
> youtube)
I have tried to be respectful to you throughout this discussion Kurt,
perhaps you might try the same.
--
73's, and thanks,
Dave (NK7Z)
For software/hardware reviews see:
http://www.nk7z.net
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|