Pete Smith wrote:
>Boy, was that way over the top, Bill. As someone who's been reading his
>e-mails for years, I doubt that Marlon was even considering "break[ing]
>several parts of the law we live by." Does anyone doubt that he would have
>obtained the necessary licenses, including the ham license you are so proud
>of? After all, his business is radio - why would he stick a finger in the
>FCC's eye.
>
>I don't think he deserves such abuse.
>
>73, Pete N4ZR
>
>At 09:32 AM 3/27/2009, Bill Aycock wrote:
>
>
>>Marlon-- Thanks for the clarification.
>>
>>As you have probably noted, your post had several "Triggers" that were
>>contrary to Ham tradition, law, and Mores. In addition, there were
>>indications that you (if unlicensed) were about to break several parts of
>>the law we live by.
>>
>>We, as hams, are proud of our identity as hams ...
>>
>>
I agree, Pete. If you look in the Towertalk archives you'll see that
Marlon is a long time contributor. I for one think its nice that we have
professional communications people on the reflector who bring that
perspective to the table. I think one of the biggest negatives in
Amateur Radio today is the pervasive crotchetiness that seems to
permeate the ranks. I hope I don't turn into one of those "get off my
lawn, kid" types when I grow older.
73, Mike W4EF.......
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|