an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

Nope but it isn't worth my time to compose if people aren't going to bother
reading it. If I'm not going to take the time to do it reasonably well, I'm
not going to bother at all.

Well it is your choice but frankly I skip any message that takes extra
effort to decipher. I keep my spell checker and grammar checker turned
on
at all times despite the fact that I received straight A's throughout
elementary school, high school, and college in all the English classes
(and
related classes) that I took. Even with these aids turned on, I take
time
to look through my message and make sure that it is as clear as possible.
I
want people to read what I've written. Otherwise why bother to write
anything?

I agree 100% with Dee's ideas expressed above. If something is worth
writing, it's worth writing clearly.

When are you going to start writng clearly yourself?

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! !
! !

You're such a card, Markie! Always the comedian!

This doesn't mean we're all Shakespeares. It does mean we can at least
do what we can to use correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and
capitalization.

Ok

He says "ok", but my money's on "But I won't do a darned thing
about it".

An analogy:

Suppose there are a group of hams who regularly QSO on VHF or UHF FM.
Although they use different rigs, all have signals with "good audio" -
clean, crisp, clear, easy to listen to and understand.

Then a newcomer shows up, with a signal that has really poor audio.
Muffled, distorted, very unclear. Not weak, off-frequency or
over-deviating,
just not clear. Varies from 'requires a careful listen' to 'completely
impossible to understand'.

Fortunately it is discovered that the problem lies in the microphone
being used by the newcomer. It's the original that came with the rig,
which is no longer made. Nothing wrong with the rig itself, it's the
mike which is the problem.

But the newcomer refuses to replace the microphone. Says it's too much
trouble, costs too much money, and a new mike wouldn't be as easy to
use as the old one. Plus he doesn't think his audio is all that bad in
the first place.

Newcomer finally says that if the group can't understand him, it's
*their* problem, not his, and he shouldn't be expected to spend money,
time and effort to get a new microphone for his rig.

How should the group respond?

One you you try analogy that is valid

It's absolutely valid.

you could also be man enough to say what you mean

Seem's pretty straight forward to me.

For example to addmto your analogy

"addmto"...?!?!

That's not even close to being a "word".

It is only those that disgree with the newcomers views that find him so
impossible to understand

I don't always agree with Jim and it made perfect sence to me.

It it also truns out not to be his mike but his voice that has problem

"turns"

and of course tell get off the air till you can fix your voice

and of course Ham operators are so accepting

Sure they are...Unless you're blatantly lying or deceiving.

Like you, Lennie and Brainless.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

Nope but it isn't worth my time to compose if people aren't going to bother
reading it. If I'm not going to take the time to do it reasonably well, I'm
not going to bother at all.

Well it is your choice but frankly I skip any message that takes extra
effort to decipher. I keep my spell checker and grammar checker turned
on
at all times despite the fact that I received straight A's throughout
elementary school, high school, and college in all the English classes
(and
related classes) that I took. Even with these aids turned on, I take
time
to look through my message and make sure that it is as clear as possible.
I
want people to read what I've written. Otherwise why bother to write
anything?

I agree 100% with Dee's ideas expressed above. If something is worth
writing, it's worth writing clearly.

When are you going to start writng clearly yourself?

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! !
! !

You're such a card, Markie! Always the comedian!

Not realy but you can tell yourself that lie

Jim wanders on and on to the point no one is quite sure what his point
is


This doesn't mean we're all Shakespeares. It does mean we can at least
do what we can to use correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and
capitalization.

Ok

He says "ok", but my money's on "But I won't do a darned thing
about it".

which is of course the same thing


An analogy:

Suppose there are a group of hams who regularly QSO on VHF or UHF FM.
Although they use different rigs, all have signals with "good audio" -
clean, crisp, clear, easy to listen to and understand.

Then a newcomer shows up, with a signal that has really poor audio.
Muffled, distorted, very unclear. Not weak, off-frequency or
over-deviating,
just not clear. Varies from 'requires a careful listen' to 'completely
impossible to understand'.

Fortunately it is discovered that the problem lies in the microphone
being used by the newcomer. It's the original that came with the rig,
which is no longer made. Nothing wrong with the rig itself, it's the
mike which is the problem.

But the newcomer refuses to replace the microphone. Says it's too much
trouble, costs too much money, and a new mike wouldn't be as easy to
use as the old one. Plus he doesn't think his audio is all that bad in
the first place.

Newcomer finally says that if the group can't understand him, it's
*their* problem, not his, and he shouldn't be expected to spend money,
time and effort to get a new microphone for his rig.

How should the group respond?

One you you try analogy that is valid

It's absolutely valid.

nope it isn't


you could also be man enough to say what you mean

Seem's pretty straight forward to me.

For example to addmto your analogy

"addmto"...?!?!

That's not even close to being a "word".

It is only those that disgree with the newcomers views that find him so
impossible to understand

I don't always agree with Jim and it made perfect sence to me.

It it also truns out not to be his mike but his voice that has problem

"turns"

and of course tell get off the air till you can fix your voice

and of course Ham operators are so accepting

Sure they are...Unless you're blatantly lying or deceiving.

Not lying or decieving you are lying and decieving in claiming to know
the medcial state of a person you have never met

You know this since you are an LPN


Like you, Lennie and Brainless.

Steve, K4YZ

an old friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

I agree 100% with Dee's ideas expressed above. If something is worth
writing, it's worth writing clearly.

When are you going to start writng clearly yourself?

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! !
! !

You're such a card, Markie! Always the comedian!

Not realy but you can tell yourself that lie

Yes, REALLY!

It's no lie. You write like a 3rd grader then have the temerity
to redress others on "writing clearly"....!

Jim wanders on and on to the point no one is quite sure what his point
is

I have absolutely NO problem following what Jim writes...Nor do I
have a problem following Hans, Dee, Kim, Lennie, Brain, John, Cecil,
nor almost anyone else here.

Toiddie can be a bit challenging. Every once in a while he
becomes lucid, then slides right back into his profane rants.

You, on the otherhand, not only intersperse a small share of
profanity, but your spelling sucks and more often than not your
"sentences" are fractured and open-ended.

This doesn't mean we're all Shakespeares. It does mean we can at least
do what we can to use correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and
capitalization.

Ok

He says "ok", but my money's on "But I won't do a darned thing
about it".

which is of course the same thing

For once we agree, but not for the same reasons......

An analogy:

Suppose there are a group of hams who regularly QSO on VHF or UHF FM.
Although they use different rigs, all have signals with "good audio" -
clean, crisp, clear, easy to listen to and understand.

Then a newcomer shows up, with a signal that has really poor audio.
Muffled, distorted, very unclear. Not weak, off-frequency or
over-deviating,
just not clear. Varies from 'requires a careful listen' to 'completely
impossible to understand'.

Fortunately it is discovered that the problem lies in the microphone
being used by the newcomer. It's the original that came with the rig,
which is no longer made. Nothing wrong with the rig itself, it's the
mike which is the problem.

But the newcomer refuses to replace the microphone. Says it's too much
trouble, costs too much money, and a new mike wouldn't be as easy to
use as the old one. Plus he doesn't think his audio is all that bad in
the first place.

Newcomer finally says that if the group can't understand him, it's
*their* problem, not his, and he shouldn't be expected to spend money,
time and effort to get a new microphone for his rig.

How should the group respond?

One you you try analogy that is valid

It's absolutely valid.

nope it isn't

Sure it is.

I am sure that YOU would like to think otherwise, most likely
because you no dobut sound just as bad in person as you do on a
keyboard and Jim's tale hit's close-to-home.

you could also be man enough to say what you mean

Seem's pretty straight forward to me.

For example to addmto your analogy

"addmto"...?!?!

That's not even close to being a "word".

It is only those that disgree with the newcomers views that find him so
impossible to understand

I don't always agree with Jim and it made perfect sence to me.

It it also truns out not to be his mike but his voice that has problem

"turns"

and of course tell get off the air till you can fix your voice

and of course Ham operators are so accepting

Sure they are...Unless you're blatantly lying or deceiving.

Not lying or decieving...(SNIP)

Sure you are. You've already admitted it. Why stop now?

(UNSNIP)...you are lying and decieving in claiming to know
the medcial state of a person you have never met

Nope.

You know this since you are an LPN

Nope.

I know it from YOUR words. Unless you've been (dare I say it?)
lying?

Steve, K4YZ