Can't We All Just Get Along?
Alan Applegate (K0BG) on October 1, 2003
View comments about this article!




Can't We All Just Get Along?




One of the most interesting aspects of amateur radio is its vast countenance.
Regardless of your background, technical or otherwise, age, color, race,
religion, creed, sexual orientation, or any other socioeconomic demographic
from which you wish to analogize it, amateur radio has an interest to satisfy
each and everyone.




These interests include: CW, SSB, FM, and AM transmissions; antennas of every
kind imaginable; digital and analog circuitry; design; building; using;
operating; to just plain tinkering; amateur radio offers aspects from the
simple, to the complex, to the esoteric and beyond. As each and every day goes
by, the hobby gets deeper, more complex, yet more inviting to greater and
greater numbers of the demography. Unfortunately, this also brings out the ills
and wills of the same demography.




Over the last couple of years that I have been sharing my experiences with the
readers of eHam.net, I have noticed an escalation of hostility toward our
fellow amateur radio operators. In Internet speak; it's called "flaming".
Although we share a common hobby, it seems those who do not agree with each of
our selected flavor of amateur radio are to be ridiculed, defiled, reviled, and
hated. While politic opposition is the American way, and has helped us keep
this country free, it has no place in a hobby which numbers are the only
demographic-of-concern to the powers that be.




Unless you have been living under a rock and thus oblivious to recent attacks
on our chosen hobby, now more than ever amateur radio and its various factions
need to solidify into a common goal: the proliferation of amateur radio.




It makes little different what your area of expertise is, or why you chose to
become an amateur. When you flame one of our fellow brethren for his/her lack
of insight, or berate him/her for technical inaccuracy, or lambaste him/her for
his position on an otherwise political position, you're also shedding
unfavorable light on yourself. The old adage, "You're known by the company you
keep" is true.




Everyone makes mistakes, and pointing out these mistakes is part of eHam.net.
But all of the superlative adjectives are not needed, nor the name-calling, nor
the destructive criticisms, and indeed the flaming which is highly unwarranted.
Again, doing so just sheds light on an already beleaguered hobby striving to
stay afloat among the various money-driven purveyors of our spectrum space.




One more aspect of the negative and demeaning tendency to flame our opposition
is the apparent protection of anonymity. Far too many posters hide behind a
pseudonym, or don't post their e-mail addresses, or even their correct name or
call sign. While the Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects our right to
be anonymous, it shouldn't be a cover-up for insidious behavior.




Rodney King of Los Angeles Riot fame coined the phrase which is the title of
this article. If we continue on our present course of demeaning behavior and
our propensity to flame our fellow hobbyists, we will be destined to fulfill
our notch in history to the same place Mr. King has found himself today; A
footnote in history.




Lloyd Davies - Time Lord and Talk show host
"On the Domestic Front"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/domesticfront/

Some idiots just don't get it.
Stagger Lee is:
Reply-To:
From: "Mark Waldron"

Some idiots just don't get it.
Stagger Lee is:
Reply-To:
From: "Mark Waldron"

I disagree (in some parts).

A Ham Radio Group should be about ham radio, and the culture as well.
Ten years ago, r.r.a.misc was that way. But as time went by, it was
just like anything else that used to be good: the riff-raff found out
about it, and ruined it.

Remember when you could occasionally use the postage machine at work?
Remember when you could make a long distance call or two from work?
Remember when we trusted each other?

Now, no.

G*D* punks are trying to steal, or somehow get, EVERYTHING for free.
Cyberpunks. Script kiddies. Assholes, basically. Someone who would
throw a brick at a parade. Someone who would spray paint grafitti on a
work of art (or even on a brick wall). It's vandalism, and they are too
stupid to see that this crime does have a victim.

Let's move on to the subject at hand: our Constitutinal scholar, who
penned the followup (here, below), saying "the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights protects our right to be anonymous", is flatus. In fact, the
Bill of Rights only states the pre-existing rights of The People.
Rights are God-given; protection is from the courts and the police; not
from the CBR (Constitution and Bill of Rights).

For reference:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

(end quote)

The newsgroup followup is even worse. "The prudent netizen holds his or
her personal information closely, and only reveals it to family and
friends."

The word "netizen" is deprecated. Personal information is freely
available, and it is time wasted to try to hide one's identity.

Security by obscurity never, never works.

Generally speaking, people who choose to taunt others anonymously, will
wither when confronted with two facts: their identity can always be
determined with some due dilligence, and once the victim has shown that
he or she is a strong supporter of the first two Amendments of the U.S.
Constitution (of course, one protects the other).

These douchebags usually go away. And you know who you are.

The good part is that we hams can (legally) talk about anything we want
to on the air, but because we have class, and care to promote "good
will", we usually keep it friendly. We have been resoundingly
successful in goodwill between nations, even to the point of saving
lives during armed combat (WWII, Viet Nam).

People on this newsgroup who send barbs at strangers do not reflect the
ham population, and in fact, are probably not licensed at all. They
could not pass the test for some reason, perhaps not being old enough to
drive to the test session, or not being able to get their short bus to
do so. If they had a ticket, they would post their callsign along with
their idiotic comment.

Then again, maybe they wouldn't act like such an idiot if their callsign
were next to their posting.

73,
Dave
KZ1O

Stagger Lee wrote:

On 13 Oct 2003 03:16:22 GMT, Lloyd Davies - The Time Lord wrote:

: One more aspect of the negative and demeaning tendency to flame our opposition
: is the apparent protection of anonymity. Far too many posters hide behind a
: pseudonym, or don't post their e-mail addresses, or even their correct name or
: call sign. While the Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects our right to
: be anonymous, it shouldn't be a cover-up for insidious behavior.

And indeed, only those who have been living in a Shirley Temple world
would naively treat the Internet as a friendly place, where the most
rapidly-growing twin crimes of identity theft and stalking don't take
place, and where email spammers aren't trying to stuff your mailbox
with pornography and drug sales pitches.

On the net, if you make your personal information easily available,
you may pay the very high price of identity theft and have people
apply for credit cards in your name, as well as have them access your
bank accounts and withdraw funds. The crime of identity theft is so
rampant that it has given rise to web sites such as
http://www.identity-theft-protection.com and has led the US FTC to
recommend that you put as little of your personal information on the
net as possible.

The prudent netizen holds his or her personal information closely, and
only reveals it to family and friends. For example, you can maintain
a throw-away mailbox for unknown people, so that they cannot gather up
any additional information about you or damage you by selling your
address to others. Free mailboxes can be obtained from places like
Hotmail and Lycos, while your ISP mailbox address is revealed only to
close friends and family.

On both Usenet and the web, similar precautions need to be taken.
Never post your ISP mailbox address, and never give out your personal
information, because you literally don't know who is reading your
posts. While 99% of the readers may be friendly, it only takes that
one spammer, stalker, or thief to do exactly the wrong thing with your
information. So why give them any edge? Don't publish your personal
information in the first place, especially any amateur call you might
hold.

And this gets me to the biggest problem of ham calls: Anyone who has
access to a site like qrz.com can go look up precisely the kinds of
things that identity thieves and stalkers need to begin their
activities. Regretfully, I have to say that such information should
no longer be made public by the FCC, just as driver's license
information has been shielded by more and more state governments.

Data bases such as those maintained by qrz.com are a valuable resource
for the criminal element, and we must now make that information much
more difficult to obtain.

In my opinion, advising someone to make his personal information
public on the Internet is similar to telling a pedestrian to cross the
street anywhere he desires: It is incorrect; it can do great harm,
and it is irresponsible.

So no, Shirley, the Internet isn't a nice, tidy "why can't we all be
friends" world, although it is a valuable and entertaining resource.
Respect it for what it is, and adjust your behavior accordingly when
you venture forth here.

I disagree (in some parts).

A Ham Radio Group should be about ham radio, and the culture as well.
Ten years ago, r.r.a.misc was that way. But as time went by, it was
just like anything else that used to be good: the riff-raff found out
about it, and ruined it.

Remember when you could occasionally use the postage machine at work?
Remember when you could make a long distance call or two from work?
Remember when we trusted each other?

Now, no.

G*D* punks are trying to steal, or somehow get, EVERYTHING for free.
Cyberpunks. Script kiddies. Assholes, basically. Someone who would
throw a brick at a parade. Someone who would spray paint grafitti on a
work of art (or even on a brick wall). It's vandalism, and they are too
stupid to see that this crime does have a victim.

Let's move on to the subject at hand: our Constitutinal scholar, who
penned the followup (here, below), saying "the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights protects our right to be anonymous", is flatus. In fact, the
Bill of Rights only states the pre-existing rights of The People.
Rights are God-given; protection is from the courts and the police; not
from the CBR (Constitution and Bill of Rights).

For reference:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

(end quote)

The newsgroup followup is even worse. "The prudent netizen holds his or
her personal information closely, and only reveals it to family and
friends."

The word "netizen" is deprecated. Personal information is freely
available, and it is time wasted to try to hide one's identity.

Security by obscurity never, never works.

Generally speaking, people who choose to taunt others anonymously, will
wither when confronted with two facts: their identity can always be
determined with some due dilligence, and once the victim has shown that
he or she is a strong supporter of the first two Amendments of the U.S.
Constitution (of course, one protects the other).

These douchebags usually go away. And you know who you are.

The good part is that we hams can (legally) talk about anything we want
to on the air, but because we have class, and care to promote "good
will", we usually keep it friendly. We have been resoundingly
successful in goodwill between nations, even to the point of saving
lives during armed combat (WWII, Viet Nam).

People on this newsgroup who send barbs at strangers do not reflect the
ham population, and in fact, are probably not licensed at all. They
could not pass the test for some reason, perhaps not being old enough to
drive to the test session, or not being able to get their short bus to
do so. If they had a ticket, they would post their callsign along with
their idiotic comment.

Then again, maybe they wouldn't act like such an idiot if their callsign
were next to their posting.

73,
Dave
KZ1O

Stagger Lee wrote:

On 13 Oct 2003 03:16:22 GMT, Lloyd Davies - The Time Lord wrote:

: One more aspect of the negative and demeaning tendency to flame our opposition
: is the apparent protection of anonymity. Far too many posters hide behind a
: pseudonym, or don't post their e-mail addresses, or even their correct name or
: call sign. While the Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects our right to
: be anonymous, it shouldn't be a cover-up for insidious behavior.

And indeed, only those who have been living in a Shirley Temple world
would naively treat the Internet as a friendly place, where the most
rapidly-growing twin crimes of identity theft and stalking don't take
place, and where email spammers aren't trying to stuff your mailbox
with pornography and drug sales pitches.

On the net, if you make your personal information easily available,
you may pay the very high price of identity theft and have people
apply for credit cards in your name, as well as have them access your
bank accounts and withdraw funds. The crime of identity theft is so
rampant that it has given rise to web sites such as
http://www.identity-theft-protection.com and has led the US FTC to
recommend that you put as little of your personal information on the
net as possible.

The prudent netizen holds his or her personal information closely, and
only reveals it to family and friends. For example, you can maintain
a throw-away mailbox for unknown people, so that they cannot gather up
any additional information about you or damage you by selling your
address to others. Free mailboxes can be obtained from places like
Hotmail and Lycos, while your ISP mailbox address is revealed only to
close friends and family.

On both Usenet and the web, similar precautions need to be taken.
Never post your ISP mailbox address, and never give out your personal
information, because you literally don't know who is reading your
posts. While 99% of the readers may be friendly, it only takes that
one spammer, stalker, or thief to do exactly the wrong thing with your
information. So why give them any edge? Don't publish your personal
information in the first place, especially any amateur call you might
hold.

And this gets me to the biggest problem of ham calls: Anyone who has
access to a site like qrz.com can go look up precisely the kinds of
things that identity thieves and stalkers need to begin their
activities. Regretfully, I have to say that such information should
no longer be made public by the FCC, just as driver's license
information has been shielded by more and more state governments.

Data bases such as those maintained by qrz.com are a valuable resource
for the criminal element, and we must now make that information much
more difficult to obtain.

In my opinion, advising someone to make his personal information
public on the Internet is similar to telling a pedestrian to cross the
street anywhere he desires: It is incorrect; it can do great harm,
and it is irresponsible.

So no, Shirley, the Internet isn't a nice, tidy "why can't we all be
friends" world, although it is a valuable and entertaining resource.
Respect it for what it is, and adjust your behavior accordingly when
you venture forth here.

Tell us more Mr. Waldron. See if you can dig yourself a deeper hole.

Tell us more Mr. Waldron. See if you can dig yourself a deeper hole.

Do you do the 80 year old? Or do you just suck her money dry? Inquiring
minds want to know....

Do you do the 80 year old? Or do you just suck her money dry? Inquiring
minds want to know....