Disgusting behavious by hams
 

I have had an amateur radio license for 57 years, and have operated
virtually all modes over this time including sideband, CW, fast and slow
scan television, radio teletype, and some other digital modes, on both HF
and VHF / UHF frequencies.

Not until my recent arrival on Usenet newsgroups did I discover this
additional source of timely amateur information.

I am disgusted and utterly appalled at the total lack of good judgment and
appropriate behavior, to say nothing of common courtesy and ham radio
civility which shows up here on occasion.

In particular, the thread in this newsgroup dealing with a most unfortunate
spat between individuals who happened to have ham radio licenses is
inexcusably inappropriate.

I feel embarrassed to be a member of a group who allow this type of
behavior to go unchecked. I sincerely request that those responsible for
posting such material, entirely and utterly unrelated to amateur radio,
take their childish battle off of this news group and any other amateur
radio news group. It is hardly worthy of a children's playground behavior,
let alone a meeting place for technically educated adults.

Smarty

Disgusting behavious by hams
 

Smarty wrote:
I have had an amateur radio license for 57 years, and have operated
virtually all modes over this time including sideband, CW, fast and slow
scan television, radio teletype, and some other digital modes, on both HF
and VHF / UHF frequencies.

Not until my recent arrival on Usenet newsgroups did I discover this
additional source of timely amateur information.

I am disgusted and utterly appalled at the total lack of good judgment and
appropriate behavior, to say nothing of common courtesy and ham radio
civility which shows up here on occasion.

In particular, the thread in this newsgroup dealing with a most unfortunate
spat between individuals who happened to have ham radio licenses is
inexcusably inappropriate.

I feel embarrassed to be a member of a group who allow this type of
behavior to go unchecked. I sincerely request that those responsible for
posting such material, entirely and utterly unrelated to amateur radio,
take their childish battle off of this news group and any other amateur
radio news group. It is hardly worthy of a children's playground behavior,
let alone a meeting place for technically educated adults.

Smarty

You arrived on usenet too late. It was a good discussion platform
when many experts exchanged valuable ideas, but it fell victim of
the new developments in IT and internet, and general unwillingness
to adapt. Most users who wanted a modern system left for the forums
and later the social media, and what was left was a group of unmannered
and often autistic folks who are not a good representation of the
community, no matter if it is amateur radio or another topic that is
being discussed.

Usenet as a discussion platform as it is now should not be taken
seriously. It is in its late stages of dying. What is left of usenet
is now mainly used for binary file transfer.
The discussions that once took place on usenet are now on forums,
blogs, twitter and facebook. It can be seen as a pity, but the blame
mostly falls on the usenet maintainers.

(who prohibited HTML, attachments, etc and delayed the creation of
newsgroups by prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms)

Disgusting behavious by hams
 

Rob wrote:

snip

(who prohibited HTML, attachments, etc and delayed the creation of
newsgroups by prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms)

If you actually knew anything about USENET and it's history, you wouldn't
be asking such questions.



--
Jim Pennino

Disgusting behavious by hams
 

Disgusting behavious by hams
 

"Smarty" wrote in message
...

In particular, the thread in this newsgroup dealing with a most
unfortunate
spat between individuals who happened to have ham radio licenses is
inexcusably inappropriate.

It is not a spat between individuals; it is a one sided vindictive campaign,
a vendetta, by Tomlinson directed at me for which I reserve the right
of reply.

Tomlinson frequently arrives out-of-the-blue spitting feathers from
his spleen when I have been involved in unrelated threads, despite
that I am a champion for the very civility and decency that you seek.

It is an unfortunate truism that there are those from your side of the
pond, jimp, stuckle and john s to name but three who are also immature
spleen a-venters.

Disgusting behavious by hams
 

Rob wrote:
wrote:
Rob wrote:

snip

(who prohibited HTML, attachments, etc and delayed the creation of
newsgroups by prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms)

If you actually knew anything about USENET and it's history, you wouldn't
be asking such questions.

I am on usenet since about 1994 and I have seen the "all postings should
be plaintext 80-column format" debates more than often enough.

Only since 1994; a newbee then.

When HTML was suggested to allow markup and MIME was invented to allow
attachements, it was forbidden by the usenet people. This made those
that did not grow up with 80-character ASCII terminals leave the scene
in disgust. Pity.

The idea that USENET should be ASCII comes from the desire that it be
usable with ANY terminal out there. There are STILL lots of ASCII
only newreaders out there. A lot of people do not use web browsers
to interact with USENET.

Attachments have ALWAYS been allowed if uuencoded; all real newsreaders
support uuencode/uudecode.

There are NO "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" for the alt. groups
and it is blazingly obvious to the most casual observer what that
leads too.


--
Jim Pennino

Your first sentence sums up the problem: You are too immature to rise above it or ignore those posts. Thus, you become the problem.

There is no reason to reply. All you do is toss petrol on the fire.

Stop feeding the trolls!

Disgusting behavious by hams
 

On 2/14/2015 7:57 PM, wrote:
Rob wrote:
wrote:
Rob wrote:

snip

(who prohibited HTML, attachments, etc and delayed the creation of
newsgroups by prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms)

If you actually knew anything about USENET and it's history, you wouldn't
be asking such questions.

I am on usenet since about 1994 and I have seen the "all postings should
be plaintext 80-column format" debates more than often enough.

Only since 1994; a newbee then.


Like you...

When HTML was suggested to allow markup and MIME was invented to allow
attachements, it was forbidden by the usenet people. This made those
that did not grow up with 80-character ASCII terminals leave the scene
in disgust. Pity.

The idea that USENET should be ASCII comes from the desire that it be
usable with ANY terminal out there. There are STILL lots of ASCII
only newreaders out there. A lot of people do not use web browsers
to interact with USENET.


Not entirely. There was also the fact that many people were using slow
modem connections and were being charged by the byte (which is still
true in some parts of the world today). HTML unnecessarily increased
download time and bytes transferred.

Attachments have ALWAYS been allowed if uuencoded; all real newsreaders
support uuencode/uudecode.


Not necessarily. Some news servers don't accept any attachments; others
don't accept binary attachments.

There are NO "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" for the alt. groups
and it is blazingly obvious to the most casual observer what that
leads too.



And many news servers don't cary many of the alt.* groups. They're not
as well supported as the big eight.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================

Disgusting behavious by hams
 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/14/2015 7:57 PM, wrote:
Rob wrote:
wrote:
Rob wrote:

snip

(who prohibited HTML, attachments, etc and delayed the creation of
newsgroups by prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms)

If you actually knew anything about USENET and it's history, you wouldn't
be asking such questions.

I am on usenet since about 1994 and I have seen the "all postings should
be plaintext 80-column format" debates more than often enough.

Only since 1994; a newbee then.


Like you...

When HTML was suggested to allow markup and MIME was invented to allow
attachements, it was forbidden by the usenet people. This made those
that did not grow up with 80-character ASCII terminals leave the scene
in disgust. Pity.

The idea that USENET should be ASCII comes from the desire that it be
usable with ANY terminal out there. There are STILL lots of ASCII
only newreaders out there. A lot of people do not use web browsers
to interact with USENET.


Not entirely. There was also the fact that many people were using slow
modem connections and were being charged by the byte (which is still
true in some parts of the world today). HTML unnecessarily increased
download time and bytes transferred.

As does not snipping previous diaglog...

Attachments have ALWAYS been allowed if uuencoded; all real newsreaders
support uuencode/uudecode.


Not necessarily. Some news servers don't accept any attachments; others
don't accept binary attachments.

If an attachment is uuencoded, a news server doesn't know what the
attachment is. The majority of the prohibitions against attachments
were on a group basis and enforced by a UDP for blatant repeat offenders.


There are NO "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" for the alt. groups
and it is blazingly obvious to the most casual observer what that
leads too.



And many news servers don't cary many of the alt.* groups. They're not
as well supported as the big eight.

Which is but one of the effects of there being no "prohibitive bureaucratic
mechanisms" applied to the alt. groups.


--
Jim Pennino

Disgusting behavious by hams
 

On 2/14/2015 9:22 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/14/2015 7:57 PM, wrote:
Rob wrote:
wrote:
Rob wrote:

snip

(who prohibited HTML, attachments, etc and delayed the creation of
newsgroups by prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms)

If you actually knew anything about USENET and it's history, you wouldn't
be asking such questions.

I am on usenet since about 1994 and I have seen the "all postings should
be plaintext 80-column format" debates more than often enough.

Only since 1994; a newbee then.


Like you...

When HTML was suggested to allow markup and MIME was invented to allow
attachements, it was forbidden by the usenet people. This made those
that did not grow up with 80-character ASCII terminals leave the scene
in disgust. Pity.

The idea that USENET should be ASCII comes from the desire that it be
usable with ANY terminal out there. There are STILL lots of ASCII
only newreaders out there. A lot of people do not use web browsers
to interact with USENET.


Not entirely. There was also the fact that many people were using slow
modem connections and were being charged by the byte (which is still
true in some parts of the world today). HTML unnecessarily increased
download time and bytes transferred.

As does not snipping previous diaglog...


I snipped what I deemed was appropriate. Sorry if that doesn't suit the
trolls.


Attachments have ALWAYS been allowed if uuencoded; all real newsreaders
support uuencode/uudecode.


Not necessarily. Some news servers don't accept any attachments; others
don't accept binary attachments.

If an attachment is uuencoded, a news server doesn't know what the
attachment is. The majority of the prohibitions against attachments
were on a group basis and enforced by a UDP for blatant repeat offenders.


Once again you show your ignorance.


There are NO "prohibitive bureaucratic mechanisms" for the alt. groups
and it is blazingly obvious to the most casual observer what that
leads too.



And many news servers don't cary many of the alt.* groups. They're not
as well supported as the big eight.

Which is but one of the effects of there being no "prohibitive bureaucratic
mechanisms" applied to the alt. groups.



No, it's because most of the news servers don't want trolls creating
thousands of newsgroups which aren't used.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================