"If you do not want your remarks to be repeated, then don't make them."
Really?
This isn't a matter of copyright law or internet security. But it is a
matter of common-courtesy and decency.
He simply did not want his message cross-post to another mail reflector. He
is the originator of his own ideas and actions. If he wanted his views
expressed, he would have cross-referenced the message post himself; he
doesn't need any additional assistance from us with what his intentions are.
-Paul, W9AC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Martin" <royalct@inr.net>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 6:54 AM
Subject: RE: [TenTec] FW: [Icom] RE: Icom Japan IC-7800 announcement
> Gee,
>
> You really believe that stuff you post on reflectors is secure and not
> available to any one else on the internet? Do you also believe that your
> fellow hams do not belong to other 'reflectors' and read posts on them?
Do
> you believe any statement you make to a newspaper can't be read by any one
> in the world these days? Free speech is great as long one controls where
> the words go, right?
>
> If you post something that you do not want to 'get around' or be seen by
> others on the net, then send it by secure e-mail. As far as 'notably
> unethical
> And onerous', well, I believe that our fellow hams can figure that out.
If
> you do not want your remarks to be repeated, then don't make them. If
your
> ethics is to be consistent, then be consistent on all reflectors.
>
> As far as RM was the only identification, I apologize for not putting in
my
> signature; thought I did. See George, I am not complaining about the
> remarks that folks are slamming me for forgetting my signature......after
> all it is a reflector and no matter what I say or write, I do expect it to
> be available to the world.
>
>
> Ron ........ NU1U
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]
> On Behalf Of Lynn Lamb
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 22:16
> To: tentec@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] FW: [Icom] RE: Icom Japan IC-7800 announcement
>
> I can understand your disappointment George, W5YR.. a ghastly thing to do.
> I'd be ashamed of these words too and wouldn't want them on this fine
> reflector!
>
> The very best to you George, W5YR,
>
> lynn W4NL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net>
> To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 9:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] FW: [Icom] RE: Icom Japan IC-7800 announcement
>
>
> > The following has been cross-posted to this reflector by "RM"
> > (kamar@inr.net) without my permission. These remarks were intended for
> the
> > Icom reflector only. They represent my opinion which I was not intending
> to
> > share with the subscribers of this reflector.
> >
> > I do not appreciate my postings being copied in this manner. Whoever
"RM"
> > is - and I wouldn't give my name or call either if I pulled such a
trick -
> > he should be ashamed of himself for presuming to make this posting
without
> > my permission.. While not illegal, such practices are notably unethical
> and
> > onerous.
> >
> > 73/72, George
> > Amateur Radio W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas
> > Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13QE
> > "Starting the 58th year and it just keeps getting better!"
> > w5yr@att.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "RM" <kamar@inr.net>
> > To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 5:23 AM
> > Subject: [TenTec] FW: [Icom] RE: Icom Japan IC-7800 announcement
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: icom-admin@mailman.qth.net [mailto:icom-admin@mailman.qth.net]
On
> > > Behalf Of George, W5YR
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 15:17
> > > To: icom@mailman.qth.net
> > > Subject: Re: [Icom] RE: Icom Japan IC-7800 announcement
> > >
> > > Icom's strategy here seems fairly open:
> > >
> > > 1. develop a basic architecture adaptable to the commercial/military
> > markets
> > > where the real money is.
> > >
> > > 2. build and sell a first generation to the amateur market to prepare
> them
> > > for the second generation, and recoup development $$ by using the
> initial
> > > model to replace the 1000+ IC-781's used throughout the world
primarily
> in
> > > government service.
> > >
> > > 3. meld the affordable elements of the 7800 with those of the PRO2 and
> > > produce the PRO3, selling in the amateur market for a street price of
> > around
> > > $3000. With the essence of the 7800 front end and superb display and
the
> > > PRO2 DSP capabilities - enhanced with still newer and faster DSP
> > chipsets -
> > > the PRO3 would outperform the ORION, the K2 and any other existing HF
> > design
> > > in that market.
> > >
> > > Only educated guesswork on my part, but obviously Icom understands the
> > > amateur marketplace as well or better than any other company. Yaesu
and
> > > Kenwood seem to be rapidly seeking disengagement from the amateur
world
> > what
> > > with their stubborn resistance to bringing out DSP IF radios, the only
> > > architecture which will survive the next few years.
> > >
> > > A few of our fortunate brethren will buy and enjoy the 7800 and
thereby
> > > generate demand for a similar product more affordably priced. Hence,
the
> > > stage is being set for a PRO3 which will be the radio of choice for
> every
> > > amateur radio activity involving desk-top equipment.
> > >
> > > 73/72, George
> > > Amateur Radio W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas Fairview, TX 30 mi NE
of
> > > Dallas in Collin county EM13QE "Starting the 58th year and it just
keeps
> > > getting better!"
> > > w5yr@att.net
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Davies, Doug A FOR:EX" <Doug.Davies@gems3.gov.bc.ca>
> > > To: <icom@mailman.qth.net>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 12:27 PM
> > > Subject: [Icom] RE: Icom Japan IC-7800 announcement
> > >
> > >
> > > > Regarding the pricing for the new IC-7800, one has to wonder just
what
> > > > market these people are targeting. I would bet that less than one
> > percent
> > > > of licensed amateurs would be in a financial position to even
> consider
> > > > spending that kind of money on a piece of ham gear. It's simply
> absurd.
> > > If
> > > > ICOM is hanging it's economic hat on equipment in that price range,
> they
> > > > would be well advised to do a bit more market research. Or, maybe
> they
> > > are
> > > > only going to manufacture 12 of these radios and then say that
they've
> > > sold
> > > > out due to heavy market demand <grin>.
> > > >
> > > > If I had that kind of money, I'd buy an IFR service monitor and use
it
> > to
> > > > maintain the radios I have. Much better use of funds, in my
opinion.
> > > >
> > > > Doug VA7DD
> > > > ----
> > > > Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan K7VC, icom-owner@mailman.qth.net
> > > > Icom Users Net: Sundays, 1700Z, 14.315 MHz
> > > > Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/
> > >
> > > ----
> > > Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan K7VC, icom-owner@mailman.qth.net
> > > Icom Users Net: Sundays, 1700Z, 14.315 MHz
> > > Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > TenTec mailing list
> > > TenTec@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|