[Boatanchors] an observation

[CLIVE COLLINS]

Good day David,

I have just read your traffic and the rather sour response from Karl and I feel that I must respond directly to you.

The reason I say that is that I have no wish to communicate with someone who has demonstrated directly to me that he is one of those people who have no time for his fellow human beings and that his views are the only ones that count. Some time back I had a problem and I was recommended to contact him with a view to him helping me solve it.
The response I got was more or less "Dont bother me, I have better things to do than answer such trivia. Go and work it out for yourself"

I found that attitude entirely at odds with the usually expected response from all amateurs that I have been privleged to know and it really made me stop and think as to why he bothers to be licensed if that is his general attitude.   God only knows what a QSO would be like with him, should I be sufficiently misguided to even try to establish communication with him.

I am ex Royal Signals and used quite a lot of the ex British army equipment in anger. It did the job. No more and certainly no less, when conditions were right. It was heavy, cumbersome and bulky but it afforded communication and that was what mattered. It had been designed for the job it did under arduous conditions in the feld. It was essentially, "soldier proof" and could withstand the every day knocks that would put lesser gear out of action instantly. The same goes for the RAF equipment, though how some of the aircraft managed to get airborne with the additional weight is outside of my comprehension.!  My exposure to the Royal Navy equipment is equally founded on respect and any gear that will stay on tune and on frequency on board a destroyer across the North Atlantic in November has got to be a good design, believe me I have been there on board a 10000 tonner years ago trying to maintain a watch with Portishead and having some considerable
 difficulty. No, I submit that Karl has got it wrong and is too full of his own self importance to be considered as a respected source of information. If he "doesnt agree with it then it must be wrong" I feel is an adequate summation.
Do please forgive me for any intrusion, I just feel that his comments aimed at you were un-reasonable and rather rude.
kindest regards and all good wishes,

Clive GW3WEQ North Wales Coast UK