| |
ZL1UIC > WLAN 01.10.03 14:44l 79 Lines 3294 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 920421ZL1UIC
Read: GUEST DB0FHN OE5RCO DK5RAS DO6NP
Subj: Re: VK3JMA It's not ham radio
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0FSG<DB0GAP<DB0GPP<DB0LX<DB0RBS<DB0SWR<DB0HBN<DB0SON<
DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0GOS<ON0AR<ON0AR<DB0RES<ON0BEL<KD7HAH<GB7BHX<ZL2BAU<
ZL2WA<ZL1UX
Sent: 030924/2233Z @:ZL1UX.#20.NZL.OC #:63126 [Hamilton] FBB7.00i $:920421ZL1UI
From: ZL1UIC@ZL1UX.#20.NZL.OC
To : WLAN@WW
>
> VK3JMA wrote:-
>
>>Not worth a regards
>
> Whatever your intention, such a comment implies contempt for the
> person to whom you are replying.
>
> This is one of the problems with packet - downright discourtesy.
> Plus an excessive willingness to attack the character of anyone
> with whom you disagree.
>
> Most hams don't behave like this when they have a voice QSO.
> No matter what the idealogical differences, Radio Hams
> are usually civil to each other on voice, so why not
> on Packet?
>
> If *you* feel my views don't deserve a "Regards", then simply
> use the neutral "73", and if you feel they don't even
> deserve the common courtesy of a "73", don't put anything,
> rather than making a derogatory comment.
>
> 73, Paula
This is a good point. It appears that sometimes this medium has been
relegated to the level of a "chatroom" of the I-net, where faceless &
voiceless respondents dwell in relative anonimity. The only clue is the
header with the callsign.
I love a good debate, and have parcitipated almost on the edge
ofincivility at times, but I try to holdvv myself in check when replying.
Shooting from the lip results in a massie backdraft, and violent flaming.
I have seen it written that "type it, read it and then rewrite it", as
reading it before sending will reduce the inflammatory nature of a
bulletin, thus limiting the impulsive reply that causes conflagrations.
The other thing that tends to pall is the incessant need by some
individuals to drag out an unwelcome (and usually unnecessary) debate well
past it's shelf life, which does nothing to engender good feelings.
I will admit to being guilty of one of the lessons I was taught at a
young age, "If you can't say anything constructive, then don't say
anything at all." several debates I kep out of for this reason i.e., the
anti-CW session for example. I read a lot of those, but refrained from
making too many (if any) comments to the topic which dragged on ad
nauseum. There were several others of the same ilk.
I hope I haven't inflamed or incensed anybody too much, as I really do
enjoy the packet scene for all it's socalled backwardness that many are
proclaiming. Isn't it supposed to be a hobby, and a relaxation, rather
than a technological obsession?
Sure thwere are many who want to improve the loth of others and more
power to them, but technology for technology's sake is a bit obscene.
We must have this & we must have that. Most of the commercial gear is
becausea big concern has been able to devote more to R&D than the
avverage, Ham, a situation that has become a technological point scoring
race, mores the pity. The chequebook operator is upon us, but we can't
reallyfight that without major ostracism.
So where to from here? Who knows? But at least some of the ham
fraternity care.
Best of luck with the future, and best wishes to all those who are happy
with the older equipment that still brings joy, and to the experimenters
and the homebrewers; you are the backbone of the hobby.
Cheers & 73
- Allen, ZL1UIC @ ZL1UX
Cambridge, N.Z. RF72RC
Message timed: 10:10 on 25 Sep 03, using WinPack-AGW V6.80, P233,
W98se, AGW-PE, Baycom modem, IC-2A, Digitor 30w amp.
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
