K=D8HB wrote:
wrote
An analogy:
Suppose there are a group of hams who regularly QSO
on VHF or UHF FM.
Although they use different rigs, all have signals
with "good audio" -
clean, crisp, clear, easy to listen to and understand.

Then a newcomer shows up, with a signal that has
really poor audio.
Muffled, distorted, very unclear. Not weak,
off-frequency or
over-deviating,
just not clear. Varies from 'requires a careful
listen' to 'completely
impossible to understand'.

Fortunately it is discovered that the problem
lies in the microphone
being used by the newcomer. It's the original
that came with the rig,
which is no longer made. Nothing wrong with
the rig itself, it's the
mike which is the problem.

Your analogy is broken, Jim.

Not at all, Hans.

You snipped off the rest of the analogy, in which
it is revealed that although there is a way to
fix or at least improve the situation, the
newcomer refuses to do anyhting about it.

That's the central issue: the *refusal* to use
an available tool to fix or at least improve
a problem.

The newcomers microphone is analogous to Marks
computer keyboard, which works just fine.

As you well know (unless you just fell off
the turnip truck) the reason for
Marks difficult-(sometimes impossible)-to-read
posts is a medical condition.

Allegedly.

Mark has claimed a lot of things in the past that
simply did not add up. Like claims of a 248 IQ...

Perhaps his condition is real, perhaps it isn't.
That's not the issue at all - the issue is what
he does about it.

He says the use of a spellchecker would slow him
down too much and that we're not worth the effort.


Give your newcomer a medical problem
(speech impediment?) and rewrite the story.

How about a person with a speech problem who
refuses to go to speech therapy, even though
the cost is low and improvement is clearly
possible?

Then we'll answer your question
"How should the group respond?"

Who is "we"?=20

73 de Jim, N2EY