| |
VK5QX > WLAN 24.09.03 00:44l 114 Lines 2920 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : F30712VK5QX
Read: GUEST DB0FHN OE5RCO DK5RAS DO6NP
Subj: Re: VK3JMA It's not ham radio
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<VK6HGR<ZL2TZE<VK5UJ<VK5BRC<VK5SPG<
VK5LZ
Sent: 030923/0704Z @:VK5LZ.#ADL.#SA.AUS.OC #:5132 [Elizabeth] $:F30712VK5QX
From: VK5QX@VK5LZ.#ADL.#SA.AUS.OC
To : WLAN@WW
I JUST SAW THIS !!
Sometimes one has to wonder.
We all make mistakes, as far as I know, and sometimes we do need to have
them pointed out.
However, I just could not resist comment on the following:-
__________
" From :W0RLI @W0RLI.OR.USA.NOAM
To :WLAN @WW
Date/time :20-Sep 14:35
Message # :136106
Title :Re: VK3JMA It's not ham radio
Path: !VK5LZ!VK5SPG!VK5ASF!WB0TAX!CT3MY!CT2GWY!N2BQF!KD4GCA!N1UAN!WB1CHU!
!K1UGM!W1ON!W1ON-5!K1UOL!N7QDN!N7QDN!KB7ZPJ!
R:030920/1435 25716@W0RLI.OR.USA.NOAM
<G8PZT@GB7PZT.#24.GBR.EU> wrote in message news:000141261PZT...
>
> Subject: Re: VK3JMA It's not ham radio
> X-Mailer: XServ v407 WebMail
>
> This is seriously off-topic sorry,
>
> VK3JMA wrote:-
>
> >Not worth a regards
>
> Whatever your intention, such a comment implies contempt for the
> person to whom you are replying.
Perhaps that was the intent.
> This is one of the problems with packet - downright discourtesy.
> Plus an excessive willingness to attack the character of anyone
> with whom you disagree.
As you have just done.
> Most hams don't behave like this when they have a voice QSO.
And done again.
> No matter what the idealogical differences, Radio Hams
> are usually civil to each other on voice, so why not
> on Packet?
And you did it again!
> 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.
And yet again!
--
... Hank
Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net
W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net "
----------
What VK3JMA wrote was quite rude.
The comments in reply to what constituted an "attack" by VK3JMA were
probably warranted.
In the reply the person writing (presumably G8PZT) made comments that were
of a general nature, and no doubt prompted by the initial rudeness that
was encountered.
To my mind the comments and advice provided were quite considered and
reasonable in their content.
I believe that Hank's (W0RLI) remarks indicated either an extreme rudeness
on his part or else a complete lack of understanding as to what the second
writer was trying to suggest, namely, a little more courtesy.
Hank's comments were not only rude and uncalled for; They sounded somewhat
like a cracked record.
From quite a way back W0RLI was quite a respected callsign.
Hank had made an excellent contribution towards Amateur Radio,
particularly in the digital field.
It does unfortunately seem that something sour has crept into the (his)
works. What a great pity!
Come on Hank! Lift your game a little.
You have the ability to contribute a lot more yet, so let us see your
reputation rise again from where it seems to have fallen.
Regards,
Ian
__________
73 de Ian, VK5QX
@ VK5LZ.#ADL.#SA.AUS.OC
23 September 2003
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
