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: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
