Peter R. wrote:
Michael Erskine wrote:

Dawn DiPietro wrote:

All,

Some on this list have felt it important to steer the discussion towards personal attacks and try to discredit me anytime I want to discuss how the rules and regulations affect this industry as a whole. My only agenda is to help others to understand how they can become compliant and do my best to explain how to read the rules set forth by the authorities. Since there is a lack of appreciation for my posts I feel I need to move on to a more professional venue. Good luck with all your future endeavors.

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Ahem, Sorry to see you go. I didn't see personal attacks but I didn't read all the posts. I don't think it is necessary to tar the "venue" because there are people on the "venue" you can't get along with.

Why not stay and prove your points? When you are right you are right. Eventually the truth will come out.

-m-

Mike,

I know email is lousy communication because there is a lack of tone and emotion, but many of your responses come off as personal attacks.


Assertion is exactly that.  Document.


Maybe it is supposed to be sarcasm, but as I read it, it was an attack.


Well, prove it and I will apologize. Otherwise, I think that you are exactly right, the medium is not good and *anyone* can read *anything* into *nothing*.



If you don't agree, say why you don't agree. No reason to just throw sarcastic jabs. One of the rules of netiquette is that if you are not adding anything to the conversation, then don't post. (I am guilty of this at times myself).


Oh. Well you certainly missed my intent then. I absolutely disagree with Dawn regarding her interpretation of the FCC's rulings. Not so much because I have any particular understanding of them but because I figure that she really doesn't have any better understanding of them that anyone else here. What qualifies her to speak for the FCC? What qualifies me to speak for the FCC?

This argument which is foolish on it's face because the only authority who can speak to the issue is not being consulted, is simply a red herring. The argument damages the list and gives someone an opportunity to make excuses about professionalism, and "personal attacks". When in fact, my perception tells me that the argument is more about who the most knowledgeable person in the room is actually.

Clearly that sort of horse hockey and arrogance doesn't belong on a "professional" list. I therefore thank God that well understand that I am an ignorant fellow who would never try to force my opinion upon anyone, even when I thought I was correct.

Yeah, it was a harped on issue. (It seems the longest threads involve MT). From what I read, most people are offering opinions, not facts. And there is no shortage of Opinion. And in the case of MT, it is like arguing religion or politics -- you aren't going to change anyone's mind. Hence, why at least one person thought the list was hijacked.

Well, you called that exactly right. It is more like *religion* than fact.


And threads like this with even perceived attacks, don't help the Org.
Well, you know the most unfortunate thing is when people "perceive" whatever makes them feel good, or works for their personal agenda. Sadly, that is what I "perceive" is happening here.

... but then perceptions are like opinions, and we all know what opinions are like ... :)
-m-

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to