FW: [WriteLog] Email verification

[Jim Smith]

Some time ago I spent something like an hour composing a careful reply 
to someone's request for help, including checking that what I said 
actually worked by starting up WL and running a few tests.  I, like 
everyone else, do this kind of thing because many people have helped me 
in the past when I didn't have a clue about something. 

I got the same kind of automated response back that started this 
thread.  I looked at it in disbelief for a few moments and said, "Screw 
this.  I wasted an hour on some jerk."  Needless to say, he never 
received my solution to his problem.  I had exactly the same 
disinclination to "jump through a bunch of hoops in order to help this 
guy" as was mentioned by someone else in this thread.  Oviously, I was 
very offended by the response, no matter how good an idea it seemed to 
be to the sender.  I see now that I am not alone in having these feelings. 

I've been trying to think why I found this reply so offensive.  I can 
only conclude that when I'm offering help I expect the other person to 
meet me half way, not hide behind some sort of barricade where I have to 
apply to a gatekeeper to be allowed in to make my offer.  I find that 
I'm getting angry just thinking about it and and it happened over a year 
ago.

Offering help is an expression of love.  Expressing love makes one 
vulnerable (unless, of course, you're a saint).  Love turns to hate when 
mistreated.  I felt mistreated.

 From a different perspective, any businessman who understands the basic 
principles will tell you that you do your best to make it easy for the 
customer to place an order.  In our milieu this translates into doing 
your best to make it easy for someone to help you.

I like Jim's suggestion that those who choose to make it difficult to 
reply to them state that fact in their request.  That would enable me to 
direct my expressions of love towards those who are willing to 
unconditionally receive it.

Wow, that feels better.

73 de Jim Smith   VE7FO


Jim Rhodes wrote:

> I am replying both direct & to the group on this one.
>
> Mike (and others who feel the need to use this type of software) - It 
> might soften the blow if you would warn us that you are running "rude" 
> software when you solicit a response. I have received this type of 
> response from others who ask for assistance and then I get a message 
> that my e-mail was refused or something. And I usually do add these 
> people to the filter list. If you would just warn us that it is not 
> easy to reply directly to you, we will reply to the list & clutter up 
> everyone's in box so that yours isn't. Or we will just not reply. But 
> to have your help refused leaves a bad taste in one's mouth and we 
> tend to avoid it in the future.
>
> At 10:56 PM 3/8/04, Mike Fatchett wrote:
>
>> With responses like this is it any wonder Ham Radio is on the decline?
>>
>> I would like to thank those that have volunteered to lend a hand and 
>> show a
>> couple of hams a part of the hobby that we have never been involved in.
>>
>> W0MU
>> Mike
>
>