[Boatanchors] an observation

[Carl]

Sorry Clive but you should learn how to use a computer before polluting the 
forum with your vicious crap. As far as my reply in the past I havent a clue 
what you are talking about as I go out of my way to help others. Perhaps 
your question was a bit off the wall or self serving as is your recent 
tirade.

Carl
KM1H


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "CLIVE COLLINS" <dartaviation at btopenworld.com>
To: "David Stinson" <arc5 at ix.netcom.com>; <boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 10:58 AM
Subject: [Boatanchors] an observation


> 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
> ______________________________________________________________
> Boatanchors mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Boatanchors at mailman.qth.net
>
> List Administrator: Duane Fischer, W8DBF
> ** For Assistance: dfischer at usol.com **
>
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3622 - Release Date: 05/07/11
>