| |
G4EBT > PACKE 11.02.08 14:01l 131 Lines 5103 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 027891G4EBT
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: packetized frogs (PE1BIV)
Path: IZ3LSV<IW2OHX<OE6XPE<DB0RES<DK0WUE<GB7FCR
Sent: 080211/0947Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:61216 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:027891G4
From: G4EBT@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : PACKE@WW
Angela, PE1BIV wrote:-
> Hi Warren and all,
> KB2VXA 2008 until 21 Jan, count 141.
> VK6BE 2008 until 21 Jan, count 133.
> KB2VXA 2007, count 1072.
> Vk6BE 2007, count 901.
> And as reference G4EBT, 2007 count 776 and 2008 count until 21 Jan 86.
> Thus 21 of the 366 (this year) days would suggest we can expect
> 2457 and a half bulletin from you.... 'Only' 2318 from Bob.
Which suggests a projection of 1,499 from me - about 4 a day.
On other modes - HF say, four QSOs a day would be at the low end of
activity levels. The only reason a few of us seem omni-present on
packet is that there are only a few regularly active bulletin writers.
IMHO, packet needs a few bulls on many topics from many people - not many
bulls from a few people. Experience over the last 15 years tells me that's
unlikely to happen.
> No problem, until many users start hitting the 'k' before even having
> a glimpse to what it is about...
Not to labour the point, what I was saying in my earlier bull on this is
that the content of bulls ought to bear some semblance to the subject
heading, especially topics such as PACKET or WINPACK, which many users
mark for automatic download.
I don't think it unreasonable to expect a bull to PACKET to have something
of relevance to that topic - not simply "ping-pong punning" between two or
three people of no relevance to anyone else.
I had PACKET marked for automatic download but I've disabled it as
bulletins were falling like confetti from a few individuals which
had no bearing on the topic and no intellectual content at all.
In a world full of misery, conflict and strife it's great that people can
have fun with each other and engage in friendly banter, as long as the
topic header makes that clear.
Others can then either join in or ignore it at their will.
Live and let live...too many on packet over the years seem
to have had their sense of humour surgically removed.
>That's also when it starts taking bandwidth that would
>best be spend on something interesting to read...
What we find interesting is a matter of personal preference.
Some believe the only topics which should appear on packet should be
amateur-radio-related, and anything else is dross. But if that happened
it would be the kiss of death for packet. The uniqueness of packet is the
eclectic range of topics as compared to mono-topic forums on internet.
Take away the non-amateur-radio stuff, and what's left?
Most topics in which I'm interested are those which many on packet find
deadly dull. They aren't subjects which lend themselves to just a few
lines.
But I try to ensure the topic header to which I send them is relevant
to the content, and that my bulls are at least grammatically correct,
spell-checked and well-laid out, if long-winded.
It's my habit to send bulls which are about 6k long - three A4 sides.
I figure that anyone interested in a particular topic won't find that too
long, and that anyone not interested in what I write about, or my writing
style, won't give my bulls a second glance, in which case it's nobody's
time but my own.
As I've said many times, bulletins aren't force-fed to anyone - we're
all free agents and have an inalienable right to ignore them.
I assume that anyone who downloads any bulls from anyone else at least has
a passing interest in the subject. The topic, size and sender are apparent
from the bulls list to ignore or download.
Hence, I remain perplexed as to why a few individuals download bulls on
topics in which they say they aren't interested, from people they don't
like, then say they find them boring, yet repeat this process day after
day.
This is a very odd way to behave.
I don't like sport so it would be surreal to sit through half a football
match on TV then say it bored me. To get me to watch sport I'd have to be
taken into custody and manacled to a chair in a prison cell. I'd consider
it cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment under the Geneva Convention.
Yet countless millions centre their lives upon sport, which is fine by me.
I don't read tabloid newspapers as they're full of sensationalised trivial
gossip about so-called "celebrities" and pictures which are demeaning to
women.
I'm not interested in SPACE bulls so I don't download them, but I don't
doubt that others are enraptured by them. Hence, long may that continue.
Someone's gone to the trouble to lift them off internet and put them on
packet in the hope that a few others might find them of interest. If not,
it's taken no-one's time but the sender's.
All credit due to them - not everyone has internet, and the contents
of SPACE bulls match the header. What's "on the box is in the box".
I'm OK with that.
But I wouldn't expect to open a SPACE bull and find unrelated comic-cuts
banter between a few individuals and I don't think the topic of PACKET,
or anything else for that matter, is any different.
Best wishes
David, G4EBT @ GB7FCR
Cottingham, East Yorkshire.
Message timed: 09:39 on 2008-Feb-11
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.70
(Registered).
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
