Bob
I've read the draft letter, and yeah, there are some problems with it, IMO. The draft letter, as written, isn't a "sharing agreement" it's a proclimation of what the group is going to do, come heck or high water. It's essentially "here is what we're going to use, so you can't use 'em, and if we decide later to use some more, we'll let you know so you don't use them, either".
yeah, it sound exactly like that...
which also sounds exactly like what the club in that letter had done to them, except the club said they are taking all and the rogues get no channels. It is a very arrogant approach to just tell others that they cant use public freqs, you noticed it when the rogues do it yet dont pick up on it when the clubs do it.
The club in the letter did just that, kinda ~We own all freqs so you rogues cant fly~.
and that is different from the OP of this thread how?
The OP is right along the partyline -
isn't a "sharing agreement" it's a proclimation of what the group is going to do, come heck or high water. It's essentially "here is what we're going to use, so you can't use 'em,
to the point of going to LandOwners/NationalOrgs to get sites shut down
(which it seems is not a nice thing to do... but only when its an AMA club, shutting down others is ok
)
I initially mentioned the draft letter in response to your comments about what if the Rogues are not irresponsible but instead want to avoid freq interfence. Well, what happens in that case is the
rogues are again wrong for wanting to have any freqs at all according to the ama fanatics. You say this is not s haring agreement, but what else could it be when it is a response to clubbers sayng they own all freqs? The obvious counter-offer is a 55:5 split, the club gets 55 and the rogues get 5 channels. Then we hear how that is heavy handed.... no, the Clubers were being heavy handed by demanding all freqs.
Say it.
The clubbers in that letter were being exactly
a proclimation of what the group is going to do, come heck or high water. It's essentially "here is what we're going to use, so you can't use 'em,
when they initiated contact with the rogues.
You can see the injustice in the rogues counter-offer,
but tell me you see it in the first contact the clubber made even more so.
Which brings us back to the OP.
The op is not having a problem with planes flying over their property,
but with members of the public using public freqs.
And like clockwork, we see the same response: "60 for us, 0 for you"
and hoping the rogues dont call Muncie and get the club shut down for freq conflict.
. . .
Robo
Wait a minute. The safety of club members, innocent bystanders, and the cost of a GSP should rest on an agreement made with an unidentifiable entity and their promise to what, stand guard 24-7 to warn new outlaw/miscreants?
What world do you live in?
That would be the magical world Muncie created with its new & improved sharing plans that can include non-member entities. If you dont like Muncie allowing this in conjuction with grounding clubs that have agreementless freq conflict, then take it up with Muncie. If you think the Muncieites have lost their minds smokin crack to have created the non-member type agreements, tell them, not me. I'm trying to live in the friendly world Muncie created, but you guys with your Anti-AMA solutions are harshing my chi, man. Chill out, have some donuts, embrace the friendly nonmember agreements Muncie gave us... stop walking the path of the AMA RuleBreakers and share in the Muncie Experience with me, man.
I'm just putting that on my list of how much you hate the AMA,
even the new Muncie freq agreements seems unaccepteble to you.
Here we have an example of a club in freq conflict with nonmembers, and you guys dont want to use the Club-Nonmember agreement that Muncie made just for the situation.
Just another example of me liking something Muncie did, which is apparently wrong... Man, I could sure use a list of what is ok to dislike about Muncie, so I can hate them like Robo and still be one of the goodguys here.[>:]
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
No, the clubbers make friends with the rogues rather than ama haters
and get a sharing agreement and have their friends remind other new guys about interference.
According to the OP that has been tried. The outlaw flyers, have refused to fly at the 20 year old, established club
No, that is not trying to get afreq sharing plan.
That is shilling for the AMA club under threat of getting the rogue site shutdown.
How would what you decribed result in a freq sharing plan getting signed, as I described.
It hasnt been tried, the club has been All Freqs Ours from the get go.