| |
M5WJF > PING 26.01.05 21:13l 71 Lines 3124 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 890530M5WJF
Read: GUEST DG0TM DL5GCC
Subj: Re: Is PING a useful thing?
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<DB0WUE<DK0WUE<7M3TJZ<ZL2TZE<GB7YFS<GB7MAX
Sent: 050126/1445Z @:GB7MAX.#28.GBR.EU #:55868 [Bloxwich] $:890530M5WJF
From: M5WJF@GB7MAX.#28.GBR.EU
To : PING@WW
George G1NNB wrote:-
> I did'nt ask!
You're the one who mentioned shoe sizes.
>>The number of 7+ file attachments on packet must be reaching an all time
>>low over the network.
>
> What on earth has that got to do with the length of your sig block?
The only time you've responded to one of my Bulls in the past, was to
complain about my use of 7+ over-whelming the packet network, indeed there
were only 13 parts to the 7+, significantly less parts than those posted
by many others on the worldwide packet network. So I can only assume you
spend all day writing to everyone who originates 7+.
Indeed, I had a number of SP's at the time (from Sysops) indicating that
this was your purpose in life, and that I should ignore you as there were
a number who stated that they welcomed any increase in traffic on the
network. I've taken anything you've posted with a large pinch of salt
since then.
As you've 'decided' that the length of a 'sig block' is now reason enough
to complain about the lack of bandwidth available to the network, I can
only assume you've not found enough to complain about regarding 7+.
I've been using this particular 'sig block' for at least twelve months,
subject to occasional editing, and no-one else has 'decided' to label me
as 'ignorant to what constitues an accepable signature' (sic), so perhaps
you should take this opportunity to tell everyone @WW your definition of
the maximum number of characters that are acceptable? Feel free.
> and are arrogant enough to imagine that people around the world would be
> interested in all that brag you have at the end of each message.
I have no intention to 'brag' about anything, this is entirely your
interpretation of my informative 'sig block', and I'm sure that anyone
reading your comments on this would determine that you are the one being
arrogant.
Your attempt to be Packet Plod (Police - for those outside the UK), is
unnecessary, unwarranted, unhelpful, patronising, and has failed on this
occasion.
73 de Wayne M5WJF@GB7MAX.#28.GBR.EU
Tower PC : AMD Athlon XP 2200+ 1GB DDR
Windows XP Professional SP2
Packet Software : WinPack-Telnet V6.80
TELNET Link : 1Mbps ADSL Broadband Internet
via 54Mbps WiFi on 2412MHz
Message timed : 14:44 on 26 Jan 2005
ÉÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ»
º Member RSGB, RAYNET HF Team, º
º West Cheshire RAYNET, MaxPak, º
º SARS, TARRG, BATC, RIG, RSARS, º
º Licensed by the MET Office º
º to receive Meteosat-8 Data º
ÌÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ͹
º Troop/Pack Assistant º
º 6th Shrewsbury Scout Group º
º Shropshire Borders District º
º Shropshire º
ÈÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍͼ
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
