| |
G1NNB > PING 26.01.05 22:11l 65 Lines 2972 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 17422_GB7ESX
Read: GUEST DG0TM DL5GCC
Subj: Re: Is PING a useful thing?
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0EA<DB0RES<DK0WUE<7M3TJZ<F6CDD<GB7WIS<GB7BED<
GB7DID<GB7ESX
Sent: 050126/1956z 17422@GB7ESX.#31.GBR.EU $:17422_GB7ESX [Witham, Esx]NNA V3.1
>From: M5WJF@GB7MAX.#28.GBR.EU
>To : PING@WW
>You're the one who mentioned shoe sizes.
Oh dear surely you are not that thick?
>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+.
You sound like a typical "Others do it so I must go one further"!
>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.
Any SysOp who says he welcomes over long Sig blocks must be a very sad person
indeed. It certainly is NOT my purpose in life, it's just plain common sense
to those who have any.
>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+.
Where did I complain about the lack of bandwidth? It just show complete
ignorance when someone sends messages with 21 lins of unecessary brags.
>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.
Then it's about time you changed it to something more sensible. Yes I will say
what is sensible and generally acceptable, two or three lines. No one is
interested in what computer you are running etc. etc.
>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.
What other reason would you include all that rubbish. I'm sure there must be
hundreds of people who belong to groups or help out with scouts but don't feel
the need to include it in a 21 lines sig block. When you send a letter to
someone do you include all that stuff in your signature.
>Your attempt to be Packet Plod (Police - for those outside the UK), is
>unnecessary, unwarranted, unhelpful, patronising, and has failed on this
>occasion.
Well lets put it this way I've run a BBS and Nodes for nearly TWENTY years
now. I've seen all the idiots come and go including BBS SysOps many of whom
got fed up with the way packet radio BBS gets abused and pulled the plug. Most
users don't stand out but you appear to go out of your way to do just that.
73 George
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
