You old bulls need to cut the young Bullock some slack. He shouldnt have to be
exposed to this kind of bull, til he has toughened up a bit. Ulcers, aching
backs, authritis & bad childhood are no excuses for snapping the boy's head off.
When he is a seasoned flamer, and can stick out a Towertalk
roasting..........wul, then.......& only then........let 'em have it!!!
Grouchy old Nx4d (dag nabbit)
Scott Bullock wrote:
> Jeff, Ed, and i'm sure others, If you don't like it, then i'm sorry, but
> the matter of proper subjects was addressed by Steve and Bill and the
> messages still keep coming through.
> I think that I did act gentlemanly. What exactly do you consider vulgar and
> belligerent? Because I posted what I felt? Because i've seen 5 more of
> these messages since the announcement was made not to? Get real.
> Your form of intelligent discourse is to try and discredit/defame me by
> posting this to the reflector?
> Your reply gets the big thunk too. Right in the trash can. Where it belongs.
> End of thread.
> Period.
>
> At 06:22 PM 7/21/98 -0400, you wrote:
> >Ed:
> >
> >With all due respect, I think that Scott is the one who should behave in a
> >gentlemanly manner, as the rest of us do. Personally, I found Scott's
> >remarks to be far too aggressive, belligerent, vulgar, downright
> >ungentlemanly and completely inappropriate in a forum comprised of comrades,
> >his opinion notwithstanding. What makes him think we all want to read *his*
> >crass off-topic and repugnant remarks? The matter had already been addressed
> >by Steve. Period.
> >
> >Surely we deserve more intelligent discourse from a fellow Towertalkian.
> >
> >73,
> >
> >Jeff Singer K2KV
> >
> >
> >-------------
> >Ed wrote:
> >
> >Guys, Scott is right. His relative inexperience as a ham, plus the
> >advantages he will gain are such that for him, matters more directly
> >related to the TT purpose can only serve to help him.
> >
> >Obviously, considering his remarks about his "undies", he is very
> >sensitive concerning this matter.
> >
> >Return flames would therefore not be appropriate. Let's show that we
> >are gentlemen and can act as such when confronted with messages such
> >as his.
> >
> >73
> >
> >Ed
> >
> >--
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
> >[mailto:owner-towertalk@contesting.com]On Behalf Of K4SB
> >Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 3:09 PM
> >To: Scott Bullock
> >Cc: towertalk@contesting.com
> >Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] towertalk subjects
> >
> >
> >
> >Scott Bullock wrote:
> >
> >I don't appreciate others posting this licensing crap onto the
> >reflector either, like k5rc, I too get 80+ e-mail a day without seeing
> >this stuff.
> >
> >Maybe what needs to be done to make these people listen is to have them
> >automatically banned from the reflector for posting this stuff. Maybe
> >that will smarten them up a little bit and make them understand that
> >others are more interested in TOWERS and appropriate subjects than
> >their replies and views of what they think ham licenses should be.
> >
> >Flame away, i've got triple lined kevlarbestos undies, but do it
> >privately, so I can be sure to put your replies in the trash
> >box......where they belong.
> >
> >Now let's get on to helping others with their tower projects.
> >
> >Scott
> >KA1CLX
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
> Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
> Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|