From: jrsargeant@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (JACK SARGEANT)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Ah.. the welcome voice of HAM
Date: 17 Apr 1992 13:23:07 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences

In <Mike_Whalen.0c16@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US> Mike_Whalen@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Mike Whalen) writes:


>  I recieved this message in my mailbox earlier today. I am clearly not a
>person who understands, fully, the way that the 9600+ market works. 

>  To the best of my knowledge, although my "friend" here has me pinned as
>someone who listens to "weenies", if you have a modem that is v.32
>specifically, you can't call v.32bis.. and vice versa. Hey.. this all comes
>from operators mouths and heresay so it could be wrong. At least I CAN
>admit that to everyone.

>  Now, my beef with this message which you are about to read, is this
>person is a HAM and he really insulted me. Told me to shut up.

>  What I want to know is.. are a lot of hams like this? I mean no
>disrespect at ALL! But so far I have been told that I shouldn't have said
>anything and that I am ignorant and should shut up.

>{begin message}

>[From    ] Doug Faunt N6tqs XXX-XXX-XXX 
>[To      ] Mike Whalen
>[Date    ] Thu 16 Apr 92 11:59
>[Subject ] (now) standard modems
> 
> 
>Excuse me, but you keep talking about standards, about which you are
>remarkably ignorant.
> 
>There is a modem standard for greater than 9600 bps transmission.
>It's called V.32bis.  There are also protocols for greater than 9600
>transmission, that are not standard, but manufacturers would like you
>to believe are.  One of these is the USR HST.  It's NOT a standard,
>and if you think it is, you're gullible and ignorant.
> 
>BTW, V.42 has NOTHING to do with transmission speed, despite what the
>marketing weenies seem to have you believing.
> 
>There is a proposed standard, called V.FAST, that is still a
>proprietary protocol, but may become a standard, that calls for 24k to
>28k transmission speeds.
> 
>You've been listening to too many marketing types, which is fine if
>you're going to keep your ignorance to yourself, but when you state
>their assertions as facts, you're opening yourself up for the kind of
>derision that you so rightly deserve.
> 
>You're much better off keeping you mouth shut, and be thought
>ignorant, then to open it and prove you are.

>{end of message}

>  WHOA! What a warm welcome from the HAM community. Take this to heart,
>guy! It's much easier to sit there in the comfort of your own home or
>office and type a hate-message to a guy than tell him to his face. 

>  I don't get this. I am sorry I am misinformed on this subject. I take
>back everything that I said about the bloody topic. This message was
>clearly uncalled for and I wish I wouldn't have recieved it. 

>  Look, guys.. I know that all of you aren't like this. I have been talking
>with some really nice people in Mail about different subjects... on the
>other hand.. you had one person last week who was complaining that new
>people didn't know "dung" about HAM and that they were idiots and shouldn't
>be in the hobby.

>  Now, you have this guy who is acting as "fact police" running around mail
>telling people they are IGNORANT and telling them to SHUT UP!?!?

>  Pardon me, guys.. but what the ^$%^ is this?! Everyone here is so
>concerned about people being welcomed into HAM.. but then stuff like this
>occurs.. 

>  There's really nothing more to say on this. I haven't really talked to
>enough peopl to say that I am getting more negative than good.. I am trying
>not to believe that this is a reflection of a lot of people.

>  If enough of you have the attitude of that guy up there.. you can be
>assured that not many are going to want to join the hobby.

>Mike..

>-- Via DLG Pro v0.991

>Yet another fine quality message from.. Mike Whalen Brand Message Prod.
>If you like it.. you like it.. if not... FNORD!
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>InterNet:                  Mike_Whalen@agwbbs.new-orleans.la.us
>UUCP:                             rex!agwbbs!Mike_Whalen
>                                 

On behalf of most reasonable Hams, let me appologize for Doug.  He is not
typical.  Though I've only been on the net for a few months, I've been an
active ham for more than thirty years, and I believe that I can express an
informed opinion on this point.

Most hams will not hesitate to correct any statement which they believe to 
be incorrect, but will do so in a manner intended to help you to learn, not
to belittle you.

One of your statements certainly appears to be correct, folks who are usually
resonable and polite when fact-to-face, or on the telephone can and do become
rather abusive and inconsiderate when sendigne e-mail, of posting to the net.

Please, stick around and become a ham.  We have many nice friendly young folks,
quite a few decent "old foggies", and only a few jerks.

73,

Sarge
--
Jack R. Sargeant, Sr. W0RIJ             These opinions are mine and only mine 
Computer Systems Specialist             (unless you want to claim them).
Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Someday (maybe) we'll get E-Mail and FTP access.  In the meantime, we post.