Well, that escalated quickly! A classic example of TRYING to say one thing,
and communicating a quite different message.
First, I want to thank everyone for paying attention to my message. Besides
the traffic which appeared here, I got a similar amount of private traffic, and
it was similarly mixed --- some avidly pro, some avidly apposed.
MOST ESPECIALLY, I want to thank Doug KR2Q for his gracious private response
(much more gracious than I deserved).
My original jeremiad was NOT intended to be against open logs.
And as Doug explained privately, his message was NOT intended to encourage
vigilantism.
For the record, I have long ago made my peace with the concept of open logs.
If I had any lingering opposition to that, it was nuked out of existence with
the UT5UGR episode.
My over-reaction to Dougs’ original message in this thread was because it
seemed to be a recruiting call to “volunteer log detectives”, potentially
setting “amateur-against-amateur” in a distasteful witch hunt. That reading of
the message was what tripped my trigger.
As Doug explained privately, the purpose of his post was to move the
“investigative reports” off the reflector to private email, NOT to incite
random inquisitions.
I think his language could have better emphasized that goal, BUT BE THAT AS IT
MAY, my response should have been private and less inflammatory. My sincere
apologies to Doug.
73, de Hans, KØHB
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|