Marshall wrote:
> >>If you disagree with him, that's fine. If you think you can invalidate his arguments by discrediting him, that's not very productive and really doesn't have any part of this discussion IMHO. <<
>
> You're right, of course, and I appologize for jumping to an
> unjustifiable conclusion. No doubt I was already inflamed by the crap
> in "QST" and over-reacted. In fact, I need to thank you for pointing it
> out and causing me to go back and re-read the message. I remember a
> boss once who responded to a direct quote in the minutes of a meeting by
> saying "I feel that I wouldn't have put it quite so strongly." [g]
Heh heh. I know I do it all the time - get focused on one particular
topic, furiously ponder it, even write up one or two notes, and
forget really what was important in the first place. ;-) Lately
I've become just a little more sensitive to the "credibility attacks",
which is why I commented this time.
;-)
Dana K6JQ
Dana@Source.Net
[
QRP-L Archive |
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]