- 1. [TenTec] ditsnbits auto-responder (score: 1)
- Author: "Richard Detweiler" <rdetweil@hotmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:06:18 -0600
- Would like to give congraduations to Gary and company. An e-mail to ditsnbits this morning was replied to with an auto responder, Thanks Gary & Ten Tec for listeneing to this forum. 73's Rich K5SF __
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00604.html (6,916 bytes)
- 2. Re: [TenTec] ditsnbits auto-responder (score: 1)
- Author: Martin Ewing <martin@aa6e.net>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:51:32 -0500
- Second that! TT will only win if we have a two-way communication. An auto-responder is a first step, but live acknowledgement is even better. (I got a note from Gary about my recent bug report. Thank
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00606.html (7,721 bytes)
- 3. Re: [TenTec] ditsnbits auto-responder (score: 1)
- Author: "Grant Youngman" <nq5t@comcast.net>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:57:17 -0600
- ... and "tests" of the responder :-) Grant/NQ5T _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00607.html (7,026 bytes)
- 4. Re: [TenTec] ditsnbits auto-responder (score: 1)
- Author: "Tommy" <aldermant@alltel.net>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:24:39 -0500
- Isn't it just amazing that TT has been able to stay in business for the past 35 years without an 'auto-responder'? Certainly couldn't have anything to do with them engineering darn good amateur radio
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00609.html (9,236 bytes)
- 5. Re: [TenTec] ditsnbits auto-responder (score: 1)
- Author: Duane A Calvin <ac5aa@juno.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:40:45 -0600
- Tom, That's surely part of it. But the other part of it is the military and gov't radios they do on contract. If they were trying to stay in business just on their ham radio income, I think they woul
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00610.html (10,209 bytes)
- 6. Re: [TenTec] ditsnbits auto-responder (score: 1)
- Author: "Grant Youngman" <nq5t@comcast.net>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:48:05 -0600
- some Of the vendors whose radios I've owned, T-T is the only one I would ever contemplate using the word "responsive" with. If there's an attitude (good, bad, or mixed) , at least there's enough com
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00612.html (7,635 bytes)
- 7. Re: [TenTec] ditsnbits auto-responder (score: 1)
- Author: jsb@digistar.com
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:46:32 -0500 (EST)
- My experiences with picking up the phone and calling Ten-Tec has been as good as it gets. Email is fine but it's as weak as the excuse "the dog ate my homework" - if you've got something to say, use
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00616.html (8,665 bytes)
- 8. Re: [TenTec] ditsnbits auto-responder (score: 1)
- Author: Duane A Calvin <ac5aa@juno.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:00:07 -0600
- Sorry guys and gals - this "reply to the reflector" bites me every time. This was intended to be a private response, not a public one. Sigh . . . 73, Duane On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:40:45 -0600 Duane A
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00617.html (12,121 bytes)
- 9. Re: [TenTec] ditsnbits auto-responder (score: 1)
- Author: Duane A Calvin <ac5aa@juno.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:13:18 -0600
- Apologies, again. My screw-up. What made sense for a private note doesn't make sense in the cold, harsh light of public scrutiny! I won't even try to defend it other than to say I was employing hyper
- /archives//html/TenTec/2004-03/msg00618.html (10,135 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu