Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:07:13 -0500, W5DXP
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: Your failure to confirm or respond to Walt's second correction offers compelling further evidence that you are an unreliable correspondent. Actually, it confirms that I am a polite correspondent. Walt and I are discussing this in private email. So this makes the third occurence. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Clark wrote:
W5DXP wrote: Richard Clark wrote: Your failure to confirm or respond to Walt's second correction offers compelling further evidence that you are an unreliable correspondent. Actually, it confirms that I am a polite correspondent. Walt and I are discussing this in private email. So this makes the third occurence. There is no pleasing you guys. Many say, "Take it to private email!", and you say, "Don't take it to private email." What is a poster to do? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:28:00 -0500, W5DXP
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: W5DXP wrote: Richard Clark wrote: Your failure to confirm or respond to Walt's second correction offers compelling further evidence that you are an unreliable correspondent. Actually, it confirms that I am a polite correspondent. Walt and I are discussing this in private email. So this makes the third occurence. There is no pleasing you guys. Many say, "Take it to private email!", and you say, "Don't take it to private email." What is a poster to do? Admit your repeated public errors On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:33:47 GMT, "Walter Maxwell" wrote: Cecil, this is the error on Reflections that I told you about last week that have already been solved in private correspondence. Why do you make Walt come to this public forum to correct you for an error he has already corrected in "private" emails? You continue to support the evidence of not having read your correspondence from Walt, or ignoring it to offer a knowingly erroneous premise. This is unreliable correspondence at two levels. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Cecil's Math a Blunder? | Antenna | |||
Cecil's Math | Antenna |