From: Jim Cummings (email@example.com)
Jeff NH6IL wrote:
> >For what reason would Adams wish to broadcast the name or callsign of the
> >station? Since he admits that it's legal, what does he hope to
> >accomplish? Quite frankly, a couple of good doses of castor oil would go
> >a much longer way in relieving his painful gluteus maximus.
> >73 and live better digitally
> >Jim Cummings, VE3XJ
> Looks like Chuck hit a nerve. Too bad for Jim.
Looks like Jim hit an even bigger nerve. Too bad for Jeff.
> I guess it's time for the every-6-month scolding for the newcomers.
> (Listen up, Jim)
> A mail list is a *very* private system in which every article goes
> into our private mailbox accounts; this is very different from
> a newsgroup! One always has the option of reading or skipping
> the articles of a newsgroup but we have no such option with our
> mail, for your article is mixed with our business emails, emails
> from our students, office memos, et al. When we accepted your subscription
> request to this list the implication was that you should refrain from
> straying outside the subject area of the list, and that you should
> be on your best behavior to remain on the list (you can be dropped
> at any time). Flames are NOT welcome on the net but should instead
> be directed via email directly to the person you're upset with.
> QRP'ers generally use CW and thus Chuck's comment was very timely,
> for, all of us should be concerned with the encroachment of the
> QRO digital machines (which are on auto pilot - ever hear one
> send `QRL?' ?) If this kind of discussion bothers you then maybe
> you should consider unsubscribing.
Jeff, I draw your attention to Chuck's original note. His was not a
complaint of a digital machine interfering with an existing CW
conversation, but a case of the existance of a digital communication that
Chuck came across. I too deplore these unattended machines just coming up
and destroying a cw or phone converstions in progress, but I have not had
any success in convincing others of severity of the problem. But that is
not your fight, it is mine, and I must admit that I have not been too
successful (or anyone else for that matter!). I also deplore CW
stations deliberately interfering with my communications when I am
operating digitally. However, Chuck's complaint dealt with the use of a
certain frequency for digital communications. He felt that it should not
be there, I disagreed and indicated proof of my assertion. If my last
comments judged to be rude rather than ironic, the original intention, so
be it. I shall take that criticism under advisement.
Further to this, it is evident that there are double standards within this
list. The first, in my opinion, is that it seems that pro-CW comments are
acceptable, but anti-CW are akin to shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre.
Needless to say, this double standard is amusing in that it points out the
foibles of human existance. The second double standard relates to the
rule of relevancy: all postings must relate to the topic of QRP. Fair
enough. But why was I only centred out for admonition? Please be kind
enough to re-read Chuck's original message and let me know where in the
body of that message it relates to QRP. This double standard, as well as
some other messages on this topic makes me believe that CW QRP is the REAL
topic of this list. Perhaps the list name should be modified to reflect
this apparent subject matter. The final double standard is that adverse
comments should be directed only to the person with which you disagree.
(Does this mean that only adverse comments are subject to private
communication whereas agreeable comments are ok? What is the policy on
neutral comments?) However, NH6IL and others have taken me to task on my
comments. Again fair enough - Since I have expressed my opinions, I am
more than prepared to consider other opinions, including "flames".
However, if the list policy is that "flames" are expressed between
individuals, and not on the list, so be it. HOWEVER. OTHERS SHOULD
PRACTISE WHAT THEY PREACH! Jeff, if I have violated list policy with
respect to flames, by all means, let me know. However, in accordance with
your own instructions, let me know by private mail of my transgression.
These double standards don't annoy me, I just point them out and keep them
Finally, these discussions do not bother me in the least. In fact, I find
them invigorating. However, you can tell with my reply to Chuck, I do not
respect Sacred Cows. Therefore, if my views are not acceptable to the net
(take a poll!), by all means take the steps to unsubscribe me!
73 and live better digitally!
James of Rockland
** Don't get too excited, because remember, today **
** is the first day of the rest of your life! **
P.S. Yes, I have sent a subsequent missive to Chuck. It seems to me that
he was the only one to have acted civilized in this whole affair! Yet it
was others who have taken offence! Interesting.....
Search QRP-L Archives
QRP-L Archive |
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 on Fri Jun 02 2000 - 11:27:00 EDT