- 1. [TenTec] Oopsie (score: 1)
- Author: wn3vaw@fyi.net (Ron Notarius WN3VAW)
- Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 12:14:31 -0400
- During the recent discussion here about the eHam "0" review of the Centurion, I was one of many people who gave the eHam editors the benefit of the doubt as to their motives for moving the review out
- /archives//html/TenTec/2002-07/msg00069.html (8,377 bytes)
- 2. [TenTec] Oopsie (score: 1)
- Author: wmoorejr@cox.net (Steve M)
- Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 14:14:46 -0500
- It appears that finding eham's right to-- do as they please with reviews as a good thing-- depends on whose ox is being gored. 73, Steve wd0ct of product but issue also And a stance
- /archives//html/TenTec/2002-07/msg00071.html (9,445 bytes)
- 3. [TenTec] Oopsie (score: 1)
- Author: amishbuggy37@yahoo.com (Larry Gibbs)
- Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
- Based on what I have seen on this list and on eHam during the past several weeks or months, I have no faith in what I may read there. Larry, W3UIO __________________________________________________ D
- /archives//html/TenTec/2002-07/msg00072.html (6,747 bytes)
- 4. [TenTec] Oopsie (score: 1)
- Author: n1eu@yahoo.com (N1EU)
- Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
- WN3VAW reports: "A post made earlier today to the eHam Product Reviews now leads me to believe that I was in error to take this position." Ron, the thoughts you expressed in your posting would have m
- /archives//html/TenTec/2002-07/msg00073.html (6,978 bytes)
- 5. [TenTec] Oopsie (score: 1)
- Author: dhhdeh@concentric.net (David Hammond)
- Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 17:07:36 -0400
- Hi Everyone, As I said at the beginning of all of this last week, Reader and Buyer Beware. For those of you who flamed me via e-mail for bringing this issue to light, you are like "lemmings to the se
- /archives//html/TenTec/2002-07/msg00075.html (6,725 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu