Bachmann Deltic - yet another missed opportunity!

"mutley" wrote

I don't know mate, but I hope he'll consider it seriously.

John.

Hi Pete,

I think Phillip may well be considering just that.....Rail Express has plenty of support in that department also....it would be an opportunity missed if not taken-up. The costs, I'm sure, would soon be pulled back. Perhaps an increase in content of Rail Express wouldn't go amiss either, in-line with a slight increase in the cost of the magazine, of course !! (Not that much, Phillip!!!)......

Colin.

In article , John Turner writes

Bless you!

Pat

In article , Jim Guthrie writes

And rapidly did so as they have done in the past.

Pat

I'm sorry of you went ahead and removed the 'D's from your 44s on the strength of one e-mail but you really shouldn't think that everyone is as infallible as you.

Pat

In article , Adrian writes

This has been suggested by one or two others, Adrian, but most readers like the present format and it does help on those days when I can't find much news. Interestingly, since I started the emails the increase in readership has galloped ahead.

Pat

In article , John Turner writes

I remain insulted.

I have emailed the originator to contact you direct and come clean.

For all the years I have known you I would not have imagined that you would capable of humiliating a friend in public with such shaky evidence. The copy you had from the unnamed writer had been altered to remove one word. The original is still in my mail box for anyone to inspect and there is no way I could have altered that. You disappoint me!

Pat

"Pat Hammond"

There was certainly no intention to humiliate nor for that matter to insult you, and whilst you claim I did so on the strength of shaky evidence, I was simply quoting a claim from a third party made (elsewhere) immediately after you had published on MREmag an edited version of an email he sent to you.

If that person contacts me as you have requested and retracts his claim then I will be the first to apologise, but it strikes me as odd that he should make this claim (if it has no substance) immediately after you published his (edited) email. Why would he lie?

John.

I'd have to admit, I'd rather go for the second option. REX is the only prototype mag I buy (and I enjoy it immensely) but if the modelling section goes it alone I'll probably have to budget for one or the other, and the modelling one would probably win!

Pete

In article , John Turner writes

Easy! He is too embarrassed to admit that he altered his original before posting it and he never thought I would get to find out.

I frequently cut out words of praise as I assume that it gets nauseating to readers. I am hardly likely to add any and I certainly didn't! That would be both unethically and unprofessional which is why I am so angry about it.

Pat

"Pat Hammond" wrote

There still appears to be some disagreement between the writer of the original email (Ken MacDonald) to MREmag and its editor, Pat Hammond, as to precisely what was and what was not included in that correspondence. Unfortunately Ken MacDonald has not retained a copy of the email sent to MREmag, but using his own words in an email sent to me today (22/12/03) he says:-

"Unfortunately, I don't have my copy of the original, it's since been deleted. Without it, although I'm fairly sure the word "excellent" was not included, I can not be 100% positive."

In view of this I feel that I am unable to continue my assertion that Pat Hammond modified Ken's email in the way stated earlier in this thread. I apologise if my assertion caused any embarrassment.

However, Ken MacDonald continues:-

"What is certain, is my views were distorted, the original wording was changed, and the last paragraph was edited-out totally!"

John.