[Bell Historians] Re: Stanton St John

[jshe726707 at J1uK0UObTqVICRj6WUmY6Z5mUyXAsb_jXdrsYncOItMVkCXufKXpDeCSGy4xhhSorLBuXxaxcKmgIA.yahoo.invalid]

In a message dated 13/03/2007 10:08:41 GMT Standard Time,  
John at k_gnDIhZflE2iSwr-OEwmYAHHr_gkUSFg5d_S62wv3LK9K7aCSlKpeo7KtGZ72mASO_d9lBWK9yXXTyQCNYYanM03E345VgT.yahoo.invalid writes:

 
 
 
From: "Richard Offen"
> So what does this all set out to achieve?  Justification for a quick
> grab and then on to the next 'unringable' on  the list of 'towers needed
> to finish the county'?

So what does  your email set out to achieve? Attempting to justify a quick 
sideswipe,  without knowing the full facts, and then on to the next 'easy 
target' on  the list of 'ringers I disapprove of'?

John Cater 


 


I agree with John Cater has said . It's all too easy to have a swipe ( from  
the holier than 
brigade ) at some ringers who actually get off their butts and do  something 
. The letter in last weeks RW concerning this tower should have been  
published with the reply next to it from RB giving him the 
opportunity to defend himself . However to be fair to the RW it may well  
have been that RB was given the chance to reply in such a manner and he didn't  
take it . Time may tell .
 
Jim Shepard
   
           
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20070313/eb723b1b/attachment.html>