Demetre SV1UY wrote: > > > Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do > not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is > wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did > not mean to offend you.
No worry, Demetre. You did not upset me. I was merely pointing out that your lack of courtesy was becoming tiresome. I assume that you will straighten out now that it has been called to your attention. You have not once shown that any of my points were in error. You mistake making an ad hominem attack (which you do quite frequently) for a refutation of someone's logical argument. On the other hand, you are clearly wrong about numerous statements that you have made, and several persons on this forum have pointed that out at length. On the issue of AEA licensing Pactor from SCS, no, I don't believe that ever happened. I owned an AEA controller for most of the life of AEA (until shortly before they were acquired by Timewave) and they frequently sent bulletins to their users to the effect that they were reverse-engineering Pactor because they had not licensed it. HAL did the same thing. So did Kantronics. This reverse-engineering led to some pretty lousy Pactor 1 QSOs, (incompatible protocols and poor hardware) and that is also why no TNC other than an SCS TNC could support Pactor II. If you made a Pactor II link you KNEW it was with an SCS modem. OK, signing off for the weekend. This thread has become repetitive and tiresome. Moderator, no need to point that out to me. de Roger W6VZV
