**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On 30 Sep 2003 19:36:57 -0700, (Steve Robeson, K4CAP)
wrote:

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..

With all this talk about children vs. adults and superior vs.
inferior, I can't help observing that insistence upon getting one's
way regardless of the consequences to themselves or others is a
personality trait that is generally observed in, shall we say, less
mature individuals.

I know what you mean, John.

Why, not too long ago I knew a fellow who "owned" an e mail
reflector that would grandiosly "ban" people from his list that didn't
share HIS specific opinions on things.

If it's the person I think it is, the reflector in question was one
where the list owner had to approve all requests to subscribe to the
group. This is not that uncommon with reflectors. In fact, I'm
currently subscribed to five reflectors where subscriptions must be
approved by the list owner first.

There were only two subscriptions to that particular list that were
ever turned down by the list owner, and they were from two persons
whose behavior on Usenet gave the list owner reason to believe that
the two individuals in question were not likely to contribute anything
worthwhile and, in fact, would probably behave the same way they did
on Usenet. Thus, he did not grant them access to the reflector. The
terms of service agreement with the server operator expressly granted
the listowner that right, and he exercised it.

Some way to get in the last word, huh...???

The bottom line in this matter is that reflector listowners,
moderators on moderated Usenet newsgroups, and even Internet Service
Providers - and before that moderators on FidoNet and sysops on
landline BBSes, have been blocking access by undesirables and
troublemakers since personal computers first started popping up on
household desktops. Anyone whose access is thus blocked remains free
to start their own reflector/newsgroup/echo/BBS/ISP and spout whatever
drivel he or she sees fit on their OWN time...not on someone else's.

It should also be noted that, to non-hams, this whole argument
undoubtedly seems quite childish.

Since this forum is about Amateur Radio FOR Amateur Radio
operators (realizing that it IS an open, unmoderated forum, of
course), it is irrelevent as to what "non-hams" think.

That strikes me as a rather shortsided view that fails to take into
account how the rest of the radio hobby view hams and the amateur
radio service. Since the non-hams who read this and other public forum
where ham radio is discussed by hams retain the right to vote for the
politicians who make the laws that affect us - antenna restrictions,
to name one important one - the perception of hams and the ARS by
non-hams most certainly *is* relevant to ham radio. Why make enemies
when it isn't necessary?

No one,
regardless of thier position on ANY subject, "owes" it to anyone who
is NOT a licensed and participating operator, to explain each and evry
reason for ANY opinion.

The FCC commissioners aren't licensed hams, Steve. Yet, when you filed
your comments on restructuring, you probably did a lot of explaining
with respect to your opinion on the topic of the proceeding.

If you are not experienced in a specific pursuit you shouldn't
insult those who are.

In general, I agree. I also feel that those who are experienced in a
specific pursuit generally shouldn't insult those who are not. I say
"in general" and "generally" because some people merely get what they
ask for.

For example I would not be found in a NASCAR
fan-club forum, nor in one dedicated to gardening...at least as
anything other than a passive reader. Unless you are ASKING for help,
it's a matter of common courtesy.

Well, as you said, this forum is about Amateur Radio, and is for
Amateur Radio operators, and as a licensed ham, I do have some
experience in this specific pursuit. I can also remember back to when
I was not yet a licensed ham, and I recall that this debate about code
testing was going on back then, and to me as a non-ham it looked quite
a bit like a bunch of kids arguing over who was going to bat first in
a sandlot baseball game. It wasn't meant as an insult, it was meant as
an observation that this is a public forum that can be read by anyone
and that perhaps we ought to be more aware of the way we present
ourselves and the ARS in such a forum - and the comment was especially
aimed at the minority of regular participants here who routinely find
it necessary to toss around insults like candy on halloween. I guess
it's one of those instances where if the shoe fits, wear it, if not,
then forget about it...frankly, I think the only people who might be
offended by what I said would be the ones who are "guilty as charged."

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=