[sparkscoffee] Re: (no subject)

  • From: "schalestock@xxxxxxxx" <schalestock@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 20:13:04 GMT

And how do you propose to "verify" the "truthfulness"?   Take a vote? JS

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Dry Turtles <dryturtles@xxxxxxxxx>
To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: (no subject)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:32:44 -0700


Lee, I understand your point that in receiving a CW message a RO can only be 
accurate in the DAH DIT DAH and not the meaning of the message. 
&#65533;However, it would seem that when reading an item on the&#65533;internet 
it would be an act of courtesy to attempt to verify the truthfulness of it 
rather than just passingit on. &#65533;After all, as RF pointed out, "It's well 
known that the Internet is replete with garbage masquerading as news." 
&#65533;Scotty

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Lee, NI7I <pixiehat@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, and no, Scotty.&#65533; We were only accurate in that what was written is 
what was sent, or, what was heard was what was
 written.&#65533; Nothing about the accuracy of the message..
 
 Lee
 
 On 9/30/2013 8:54 AM, Dry Turtles wrote:RF, Great point about being 
responsible for what a forum member posts here on SCB. I am surprised 
that&#65533;a Radio Officer would use the excuse. "I just report this stuff" 
&#65533;Are not RO's known for accuracy which would carry over into all aspects 
of ourlife ?&#65533;Scotty

____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. sparkscoffee
  3. Archive
  4. 09-2013