Hi Jose, I wondered if there was some major misunderstanding here because Dave has clearly been on the opposite side of the issue for years and has posted on other venues as well as this one on the same subject.
As to the Winlink 2000 owners claiming there is no hidden transmitters, I am not sure, but I would be surprised if they did take that position. Verbal escalation is very unfortunate but sometimes occurs on these internet discussions. The internet is not for those who are impatient with understanding, since it sometimes takes many exchanges to understand the different positions of those who post. If we were meeting physically, many errors of this type would be easily corrected in a few seconds. I am glad that you are looking for the truth in all this because hopefully that is what all of us are trying to do. Even if we might have different perspectives on a given issue. 73, Rick, KV9U Jose A. Amador wrote: > Rick wrote: > > >> Dave seems to have the high ground on this discussion. Some of Jose's >> comments lately seem to be very specious, which surprises me since he >> has normally been fairly logical in his comments. I am concerned that >> Jose is claiming that Dave does not accept the hidden transmitter issue, >> which is preposterous! I have seen Dave's comments many times and a >> major concern that he and others have is that there is the hidden >> transmitter effect. What is going on here, Jose? I think at the very >> least an apology is in order for deliberately misconstruing Dave's >> actual viewpoints. >> > > Rick, initially I understood he was denying the existence of the > hidden station. It has not been my intention at all to deliberately > miscontrue his viewpoint. > > I accept I am fallible and that may have I misunderstood his point > when reading not in a full context. I may have been misled. > English is not my mother tongue. I gain nothing in discrediting > anyone on a false ground, that is also unnacceptable to me. > > David himself has explained that he assumed the Winlink's position > to deny its validity. But initially I understood the contrary, which > left me bewildered. I have not seen anywhere such a denial made by > the Winlink team themselves. > > I have been after the truth, and nothing else. I understand the > hidden station effect is UNDENIABLE, and I find the denial of a > proven physical unnaceptable, to say the least. > > What is needed? An apology that it was a misunderstanding? Haven't I > told it already in a implicit way? It appears in the last paragraph > you quote. If a explicit phrase is needed, here it goes: > > > > Mr. Bernstein, sorry if I misunderstood you. > > > > Is that OK now, Rick? > > But I have seen my statements misconstrued, and attempts that I > justify things I did not state. Objectively, persisting in the > clarification of every tiny detail has solved nothing, and > actually has led to a verbal escalation. It is a worthless > endeavour. > > > ____
