Response to ctrask at primenet.com re. SB-200/220

[Rowland1]

Chris, for your information, I am somewhat visually impared, as you
suggested in your missive, and the condition cannot be corrected.
Nevertheless, I would have sworn that the person making the query had
said SB-200 in his subject, and then SB-220 in the body.  Perhaps I
should have sent info on both since I wasn't certain.

In any case, my possible error should surely not prompt such surly
comments from you.  I don't believe that the other ham appointed you to
speak for him.  Also, Mmy reply was addressed to him, not to you.

Perhaps you should consider some professional help with a view to
adjusting your attitude.  I really don't hink anyone apprciates scathing
criticism, particularly from a third party, when they're merely making a
sincere attempt to assist a fellow ham.

You remind me of the self-appointed DX-pileup "policeman" on 20-meters.

Keith
K4KGW