[Boatanchors] Apology - My Commentary

[Clarke, Tom AIR4.0P NATOPS]

Some of my friends are right, and some of my friends are wrong!  I
support my friends!

Most of what happens here offers enlightenment, as well as comic relief
at times! 

It's all good.

73 de Tom/W4OKW
Toiling daily to ensure the sanctity of the Airworthiness technical data
for Naval Aircraft. 

-----Original Message-----
From: rbethman [mailto:rbethman at comcast.net] 
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 1:58 PM
To: boatanchors at qth.net
Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] Apology - My Commentary

To my friend Al Parker, I would like to extend an apology. Al, I am very
sorry if this gave the appearance of being directed at yourself. You and
I have worked at the Hammarlund Info, and those offers still stand.

I would also like the entire group to accept that Michael has INDEED
extended an apology. I realize that the "majority" haven't gotten to
know Michael. I would "Highly" recommend that you visit his web sites. 
You will gain a healthy insight!

I do NOT post this as a "defender", from the viewpoint of a "supporter",
or as a "close friend". I post this as a disabled veteran whom has seen
MANY of the Viet Nam Era vets that have lifelong issues.

The remainder of Michael's rambling is only "just" that - rambling.

The entire thread has been off topic to "some members" of the list. I
would like to point out that THIS list and ANY other one DOES have
periods where we stray.

In this instance, the issues had to do with Hertz versus "cycles per
second", the use of either 'M' or 'm' for the mega prefix, and the use
of either 'K' or 'k' for the kilo prefix.

*I* have been guilty of this "misuse" of capital letters in lieu of
lowercase ones. I suspect that I will make errors in the future.

Some have picked up little pieces of information, others may simply have
gotten frustrated.

I will simply finish with "Mea Culpa!"

Bob - N0DGN



On 11/18/2010 11:42 AM, Kludge wrote:
> I'm told I owe Al Parker an apology for what has been seen as a 
> personal attack.  While it wasn't intended as such, I've re-read my 
> last message and can see how that would be the case so, yes, I do
apologize.
>
>
>
> What I do NOT apologize for is what was said.  The particular "you"
> indicated was supposed to be explicitly plural not singular 
> (indicating I should proofread better before hitting "send") and was 
> directed at everyone who cannot see their way clear to contribute
rather than complain.