"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:FAIHd.19368$B95.14638@lakeread02...

"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote

Well said Doug. Jack, inasmuch as he is not a ham, doesn't really have
a dog in this fight. He clearly lacks knowledge of how the ham
community
works
and very clearly has some sort of bias against the MMSN and other
related
nets.

Doug, k3qt
s/v Callista


Doug (of Calista), why would you say such a thing?

It is my experience of operating in this area for 10 years.

You just slandered me and
I expect an apology through the group,

What are your damages as a result of this "slander"?

after you read back through the times
that I highly praised the MMSN and the workers in that net. When you
start
inventing crap like that just because you tire of being corrected for
your
consistently inaccurate statements about the Coast Guard, your
reputation
goes to zero in the eyes of honorable men.

So your implication is that just because you say good things about MMSN
("playing-around" was I believe your complement), I should automatically
say good things about the CG operators. I don't see how that follows.

You sir, give a bad name to hams, by lying on their behalf while you
try
to
defend some of the indefensible statements you have made about the CG
and
their radio operations in particular. When you resorted to slander, you
stepped over the line, and that had better stop right now.

When did I lie on someone's else's behalf? I think you have gone
around the bend. You also need to learn the definition of slander, Last I
knew the definition isn't "something that Jack disagrees with". I think
you
better
calm down before your head explodes.

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia


Doug Dotson you are a liar, and that's much worse than your head full of
misinformation about maritime communications that you portray yourself an
expert on. Someday, you could change your attitude, admit you can be wrong
about things, and act like a man when it happens. But failing that proper
behavior (as others do here occasionally, eg: Chuck's post last night
where
he thinks he sets the newsgroup straight about radio checks being allowed,
flouts a URL which he is barely familiar with, and then quotes a line
about
exemption of transmission test from the any-station rules. Then, just for
me
he impugns that " To some of us, it does matter that your advice and legal
opinions often bear dubious relation to reality." Nice. He was
nonetheless
dead wrong about the rules of making radio checks, and yet when I point
this
out in a polite manner, he never acknowledges or apologizes, just hides.
What a man! You however, don't even have the decency to hide. You just
author slanderous and untruthful fabrications in order to disguise your
self
pity of being mistaken about something.

You dishonestly accused me of expressing a contempt for the Maritime
Mobile
Service Net, and the archive record here shows my praise not only for the
good and honorable service MMSN provides to the maritime community, but
also
to the dedication of the Net Controllers and operators such as Richard
Webb
who I thanked for his good service there, and who was participating in
this
thread. Before that, you asserted I had no idea how a HAM Net, or any Net
operates. A playful barb with no specific reference was all that resulted.
I
do after all, have the honor of controlling Nets with dozens of USCG
Rescue
Aircraft, Cutters, and other services. But that nasty behavior is just
typical of Doug Dotson, and we all have to let your inner-child assert
itself for the sanity of the newsgroup. But your accusations about my
alleged BIAS against the MMSN were both false and malicious, and attempted
to damage my reputation among the marine community who certainly
appreciate
the work of the MMSN, as do I. There are certainly damages possible when
your mouth is running (or your fingers are typing) Doug, and that ranges
from insulting people who wish you no harm, to bringing discredit to a
service such as the United States Coast Guard and Maritime Mobile Service
Net, whose work is not in competition, but in service, safety, and
goodwill
toward the marine community. What you bring to that table is contempt for
USCG radio operators, their knowledge, commitment and abilities, a very
broad misunderstanding of the basic rules of marine radiotelephony, and
then
repeatedly compare HAMS as a much better alternative at every task. We
have
many examples of those bitter tirades from you Doug, and you should ask
yourself if even once, that attitude (never mind for now how misplaced and
inaccurate many of your statements were), if that attitude furthered the
goals of either the MMSN or the USCG? Both of which services may your very
life and those of your passenger rely on someday, incidentally. Perhaps
that's your definition of "collateral damage", to hurt individuals and the
services whose mission of lifesaving somehow has components that offend
you?
Well forgive us, for not doing all things the way YOUR plan of things
looks.
Consider that constructive suggestions, or even pointing out clear
variations from generally accepted procedures, would go so much farther
than
just your bitterness, which as I see it, is all you have offered this
entire
discussion from the beginning. I'll bet you are SO fun to cruise with!
(that's a joke Doug!)

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia

I think you need to calm down and get a life.
So long.

Doug