Well said Nate! I rarely respond to these type of things but couldn't control the urge this time.
As anyone who monitors this list knows Eric provides a wealth of information and in a very professional manner. I for one read almost every reply that Eric sends as I have found his information very informative. He is one of the few who never sends a reply without useful information being included. He is not one who replies in a Smart Ass mode however what appeared to be a little intended humor (poked at the obvious) in this case might have been mistaken as such. Sad as his reply did point to a source for the answer being sought. Apparently that part was was overlooked. Larry - N7FM -----Original Message----- From: Nate Duehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Wacom 642 Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 03:30:17 -0600 On Apr 11, 2008, at 6:27 AM, Dail Terry wrote: > Eric, > You may have lost track of the fact that this is a site to ask > questions and people knowledgeable in the subject answer. (Note the > answer Bruce gave to the question) The answer you gave makes me > wonder if it isn't time for you to step back and re-evaluate your > position on this board. There are some very talented people very > willing to share their experience and knowledge. With an answer as > you gave, it appears as though you are NOT one of them. Next time I > ask a question, please don't bother to answer. > Dail > N6DGT Dail, (Little bit of a long response, but I type fast -- don't take it as "angry" -- many people make that mistake when it comes to e-mail, it's even been proven by "real" scientists.) The answer was a very good one, since the manufacturer that bought them is still more than happy to answer questions about "dead" product... something rarely seen in business these days. Many of our used products we use in Amateur Radio are MORE than adequately supported by manufacturers who won't make a DIME on giving out information on old "acquired company" products... especially when the question comes from a ham who'll never buy anything from them brand new, ever. The reality is -- when a company goes out of their way to support "old" products from previous company names -- we here all appreciate that VERY much. Eric's answer was 100% accurate and correct -- you have a product that *is* still supported by a manufacturer who is VERY helpful to even us piddly little ham radio customers. Contacting them will both get you the most correct and accurate answer to your question, as well as getting the answer in the most timely fashion possible. All Eric was saying was something like... You: I need some information on my Ford. Eric: Ford was bought by Chevy. Have you talked to them? They are supporting Fords still! You misunderstood and took his "have you called them?" wrong. The joys of e-mail. There's no accounting for taste, but given an 800 number direct to the people that made and still support a product line, and an Internet mailing list -- I know which one I'd want my answers from! I try to look at it this way on online forums -- did Eric answer HARM you in any way? No. Was the snippy response more HARMFUL than his comment? Yeah... maybe. When it becomes "personal" it almost always is just someone venting... and you attacked his experience level and indirectly claimed he had no knowledge. That's often counter- productive to having an online community. Hopefully my response here isn't HARMFUL to you. Just trying to explain why you got the answer that you did. Thanks to Eric for his continued support of the group and useful contributions. I too, appreciate his contribution to this online "community". Check back in the list archives if you question his abilities or his sincerity in offering you what he saw as the BEST solution to your question. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
