[R-390] Netiquette

[Cecil Acuff]

Agreed on all accounts...many of the same points I tried to make in my post 
just done mucho better....

Cecil
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "2002tii" <bmw2002tii at nerdshack.com>
To: <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: [R-390] Netiquette


> Well, I'll give it one more shot to try to clarify what I thought was 
> objectionable about the original post.  Once again, I intend my tone to be 
> respectful and hope everyone takes it that way.
>
> I promise this is the last I'll say about it, and encourage others to let 
> the matter drop soon (if not immediately), as well.
>
>>I respectfully disagree.  This really has nothing to do of my opinion. I 
>>factually pointed out why I was exposing this individual who was preying 
>>on the good will of those on the list.  I was telling the proven facts 
>>about this persons actions.
>
> Here is where we disagree most sharply.  This is the list of "offenses" 
> you posted:  (i) he shows up on the list only to ask for parts to repair 
> equipment that he then sells, possibly representing when he does so that 
> he is using the radio in question in his own station; (ii) he did not 
> respond to your suggestion about selling radios to list members instead of 
> parting them out; (iii) he didn't want to pay the price you were asking 
> for tube shields, although others were happy to pay it; and (iv) he 
> described some knobs you bought as in great condition and you thought they 
> were only average, then blacklisted you when you left him neutral 
> feedback.
>
> These are ALL assertions of opinions, not a fact among them, proven or 
> otherwise.  Further, what possible relevance do (i) through (iii) have? 
> How is he cheating anybody by asking for parts on the list, not answering 
> e-mail, not taking your suggestions about how to sell his radios, parting 
> out radios, or refusing to pay what you were asking for items you were 
> selling?  Some of these are things some of us might not do ourselves, and 
> might even think are unseemly.  But they do not, by any stretch of the 
> imagination IMO, constitute a fraud emergency about which a whole mailing 
> list needs to be alerted.  The only possible real offense in this batch is 
> speculation that the seller misrepresented that the radios were being used 
> in his station when they really weren't.  But do you have any knowledge 
> this was the case?  It appears you reached this conclusion by inference 
> after seeing the item(s) for sale.  How long (or how much) does someone 
> have to use a radio for it to be part of his own station, anyway?  I know 
> any number of hams that have completely new stations every time I talk to 
> them, every piece bought and sold on-line.  Should we declare an emergency 
> and alert the list if one of them tries to buy parts for one of those 
> radios here?  As to the other two of these first three "offenses," who are 
> any of us to judge someone for wanting to dispose of his own radios as he 
> sees fit rather than how we would prefer?  Or for having in mind what he 
> thinks is a fair price for something (however wrong he might be), and 
> declining to pay more than that?  Even if he insulted you and called you a 
> thief for asking what you were asking for the tube shields, that is just 
> not something the rest of us need to know -- it is between you and him.
>
> Turning to item (iv), the two of you disagreed about the condition of some 
> knobs you bought from him.  I don't know if you told him your assessment 
> and asked for an adjustment or a refund, or just left neutral feedback. 
> In any case, it wasn't bad enough for you to leave negative feedback and 
> you were willing to do business with him again (in fact, you seem irked 
> that you weren't able to).  A dispute about the subjective condition of an 
> item, which did not warrant negative feedback or even put you off dealing 
> with the seller again, simply does not justify slamming him on a public 
> mailing list.  IMO.
>
>>I admit a bit of sarcasm in some of my comments.  It was earned.
>>
>>I'm not like some people who when kicked ones private anatomy say "Why, 
>>that wasn't cricket!"
>
> I'm just asking:  Could it be that you take offense quite easily, and turn 
> every perceived slight into a hanging offense?  From your own 
> characterizations, I just don't see that you were kicked anywhere -- 
> certainly not in sensitive parts or in any way that would, IMO, justify 
> calling someone out publicly.  I'm not saying it could never be 
> justified -- I just don't see it here.
>
> And that is my final on the topic.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Don
>
>
> ps.  For the record, I do not know either party other than by their posts 
> on this list.
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> R-390 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
> Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
> Unsubscribe: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/options/r-390
>