[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] N6ZZ's Crankup Horror Story

To: <>
Subject: [TowerTalk] N6ZZ's Crankup Horror Story
From: (Stan Griffiths)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 01:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
>Stan, with that type of logic why not blame it on the 40 meter beam? If he
>would have had a 10 meter beam instead of a 40 meter beam it would have
>cleared the lines and he wouldn't have had a problem in the first place.---Or
>blame it on being a ham. If he wasn't a ham he wouldn't have been messing with
>antennas and towers in the first place. Maybe better yet, blame it on being
>human since human beings sometimes make mistakes. This all makes as much sense
>as your response.
>Joe, K0JN

Like I said, crankup owners will find something else to blame it on . . .

I think my logic is pretty good on this one.  The subject, as I defined it,
was crankups vs guyed fixed towers, not 40 meter beams vs 10 meter beams, or
the relative merits of ham radio vs photography as a hobby.  All I am saying
is that choosing a guyed fixed tower rather than a crankup, all else being
the same, would have prevented this close call.  As you point out, there are
other things that could also have prevented it.

Phil had no choice in whether or not he could be human and little choice
about whether or not to be a ham.  To put up a crankup instead of a guyed,
fixed tower was entirely by his choice . . . We have to concentrate on the
things we can control (like choosing a safe tower over an unsafe one) and
accept the things we can't control.  Sound familiar?


FAQ on WWW:     
Administrative requests:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>