|
Schlecks' direction on moderation
John Smith I wrote:
--strange they ALL seem to have extra licenses, isn't it? Isn't it slightly analogous to universities preferring teachers with PhD degrees? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
On Jan 28, 10:45 am, Cecil Moore wrote: John Smith I wrote: --strange they ALL seem to have extra licenses, isn't it?Isn't it slightly analogous to universities preferring teachers with PhD degrees? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Universities and the public would be better served with teachers having a Masters degree and real work experience... instead of a bunch of bickering eggheads who've never had to earn a living. |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
Cecil Moore ) writes:
John Smith I wrote: --strange they ALL seem to have extra licenses, isn't it? Isn't it slightly analogous to universities preferring teachers with PhD degrees? In this case, no. I don't see a bias in the proposed moderators in the proposed moderated newsgroup. But, moderators are generally there to keep the junk out of the newsgroup, not to edit content. They aren't there to evaluate what is being said, they are there to determine whether the post is off-topic and/or will cause problems in the newsgroup. It would take a pretty incapable person to not be able to tell the difference between what was on-topic and what doesn't belong. We are talking about a pretty clear divide. ANd even borderline posts, it doesn't require High Learning to decide, it requires judgement. I'm not convinced that the moderators for this proposed newsgroup actually need to be hams. Some guy walking in off the street is just as capable as making most of those judgements as anyone else. The caveat being that their unfamiliarity with the hobby might make them let things slip through, when they didn't know the difference between amateur radio and CB or something else. But even then, that's not tied to needing a piece of paper, it's tied to whether someone is familiar enough with the hobby. I would argue that there is a bias in even making an analogy to higher learning. Because there is something about the tone of all this proposed newsgroup that sure seems to place it in academia, and I'm not convinced that is a good thing. Michael VE2BVW |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote: --strange they ALL seem to have extra licenses, isn't it? Isn't it slightly analogous to universities preferring teachers with PhD degrees? EXACTLY! Maybe there is even an argument on a university scale, with a hobby--no ... Regards, JS |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
|
Schlecks' direction on moderation
Michael Black wrote:
... I don't see a bias in the proposed moderators in the proposed moderated newsgroup. ... You took a blue pill ... Regards, JS |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
"Michael Black" wrote in message ... [snip] I'm not convinced that the moderators for this proposed newsgroup actually need to be hams. Some guy walking in off the street is just as capable as making most of those judgements as anyone else. The caveat being that their unfamiliarity with the hobby might make them let things slip through, when they didn't know the difference between amateur radio and CB or something else. But even then, that's not tied to needing a piece of paper, it's tied to whether someone is familiar enough with the hobby. I would argue that there is a bias in even making an analogy to higher learning. Because there is something about the tone of all this proposed newsgroup that sure seems to place it in academia, and I'm not convinced that is a good thing. Michael VE2BVW I would agree that the moderators only really need to be people of good judgment. None of us really object to off-topic posts to any great degree. What is objectionable is that there are several people who seem to feel a need to stoop to name calling, profanity, vulgarity, ad hominem attacks and so on rather than indulge in the simple pleasure of debate. You will notice that the most vehement of those opposing the moderated news group are those that have the worst behavior. It seems that all they really want is to insure that they have targets to continue their tactics. Of course we could just filter them but every few days you have to add another as they keep coming up with new IDs. My killfile is huge these days. Dee, N8UZE |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
On Jan 28, 11:08 am, (Michael Black) wrote: Cecil Moore ) writes: John Smith I wrote: --strange they ALL seem to have extra licenses, isn't it? Isn't it slightly analogous to universities preferring teachers with PhD degrees?In this case, no. I don't see a bias in the proposed moderators in the proposed moderated newsgroup. fuuny I guess you have not been reading the posts of some of them to this NG One of felt it was On Topic to enage in MAKING statement that a poster was was insane due to his sexual orientation dispite knowing and posting about how the APA disagrees another clearly felt it a shock to suggest that the Techs in general might be developing a different and valid view of the ARS But, moderators are generally there to keep the junk out of the newsgroup, not to edit content. They aren't there to evaluate what is being said, they are there to determine whether the post is off-topic and/or will cause problems in the newsgroup. based the samples I have subitmeted (at their request and been banned from further exploration of that system for my trouble BTW it spears they intend SERIOUS editiorail control I would argue that there is a bias in even making an analogy to higher learning. Because there is something about the tone of all this proposed newsgroup that sure seems to place it in academia, and I'm not convinced that is a good thing. it is a GOOD if you want to propate the Status quo that the pronetns seem to think the NEW NG is a Good thing it leads a thinking man to question if it is not designed conously or not to acheive that end Michael VE2BVW |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
On Jan 28, 11:15 am, John Smith I wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: John Smith I wrote: --strange they ALL seem to have extra licenses, isn't it? Isn't it slightly analogous to universities preferring teachers with PhD degrees?EXACTLY! Maybe there is even an argument on a university scale, with a hobby--no ... and in that context it is hard to selnce the student unlike the proposed NG Regards, JS |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
an_old_friend wrote:
... and in that context it is hard to selnce the student unlike the proposed NG Regards, JS AOF: Valid point. Well said. Regards, JS |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
On Jan 28, 12:47 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote: "Michael Black" wrote in ... [snip] What is objectionable is that there are several people who seem to feel a need to stoop to name calling, profanity, vulgarity, ad hominem attacks and so on rather than indulge in the simple pleasure of debate. Dee Flint you are one of those offender You will notice that the most vehement of those opposing the moderated news group are those that have the worst behavior. It seems that all they really want is to insure that they have targets to continue their tactics. ah yes everyone that disagrees is eveil and an offender same stuff from the code wars Of course we could just filter them but every few days you have to add another as they keep coming up with new IDs. My killfile is huge these days. Dee, N8UZE |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
an_old_friend wrote:
... Dee Flint you are one of those offender You will notice that the most vehement of those opposing the moderated news group are those that have the worst behavior. It seems that all they really want is to insure that they have targets to continue their tactics. ah yes everyone that disagrees is eveil and an offender same stuff from the code wars Of course we could just filter them but every few days you have to add another as they keep coming up with new IDs. My killfile is huge these days. Dee, N8UZE AOF: Dee is one of the few which has managed to keep some perspective. Please do NOT name call or abuse Dee. I would suspect her one of the "most capable" of accepting our new licensees ... Dee engages in discussion, that speaks volumes about the caliber of this woman, I like what I see, think about it, don't you? You will make no friend here if you continue attacks upon her ... Regards, JS |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
"John Smith I" wrote in message ... an_old_friend wrote: ... Dee Flint you are one of those offender You will notice that the most vehement of those opposing the moderated news group are those that have the worst behavior. It seems that all they really want is to insure that they have targets to continue their tactics. ah yes everyone that disagrees is eveil and an offender same stuff from the code wars Of course we could just filter them but every few days you have to add another as they keep coming up with new IDs. My killfile is huge these days. Dee, N8UZE AOF: Dee is one of the few which has managed to keep some perspective. Please do NOT name call or abuse Dee. I would suspect her one of the "most capable" of accepting our new licensees ... Dee engages in discussion, that speaks volumes about the caliber of this woman, I like what I see, think about it, don't you? You will make no friend here if you continue attacks upon her ... Regards, JS What can I say but Thank You. Dee, N8UZE |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
Dee Flint wrote:
... What can I say but Thank You. Dee, N8UZE Dee: Don't thank me, you did that yourself. Your past posts to me on "proper elmer-ing of the youngsters" immediately pop to my mind ... Regards, JS |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
|
Schlecks' direction on moderation
wrote:
Universities and the public would be better served with teachers having a Masters degree and real work experience... instead of a bunch of bickering eggheads who've never had to earn a living. Master's degrees are acceptable for a lot of university teaching jobs. However, Bachelor's degrees alone are often not acceptable. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
Michael Black wrote:
It would take a pretty incapable person to not be able to tell the difference between what was on-topic and what doesn't belong. So is a discussion on the nature of the quantum structure of empty space on-topic for an antenna group? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
Dee Flint wrote: "Michael Black" wrote in message ... [snip] I'm not convinced that the moderators for this proposed newsgroup actually need to be hams. Some guy walking in off the street is just as capable as making most of those judgements as anyone else. The caveat being that their unfamiliarity with the hobby might make them let things slip through, when they didn't know the difference between amateur radio and CB or something else. But even then, that's not tied to needing a piece of paper, it's tied to whether someone is familiar enough with the hobby. I would argue that there is a bias in even making an analogy to higher learning. Because there is something about the tone of all this proposed newsgroup that sure seems to place it in academia, and I'm not convinced that is a good thing. Michael VE2BVW I would agree that the moderators only really need to be people of good judgment. I agree to a point. I would also add that they should be knowledgeable about the subject, and willing to require proof of claims made by posters. For example, some time back, it was posted here that *all* amateurs whose licenses were expired but in the grace period could continue to operate. The reality is that such operation is a violation of FCC rules unless the licensee has filed for renewal. Someone who is not familiar with the rules might accept that mistake as fact, and allow it to be posted unchallenged. Not a good thing. None of us really object to off-topic posts to any great degree. What is objectionable is that there are several people who seem to feel a need to stoop to name calling, profanity, vulgarity, ad hominem attacks and so on rather than indulge in the simple pleasure of debate. I agree 100%. You will notice that the most vehement of those opposing the moderated news group are those that have the worst behavior. It seems that all they really want is to insure that they have targets to continue their tactics. I am convinced that, for some the "pleasure of debate" consists almost entirely of those attacks. Of course we could just filter them but every few days you have to add another as they keep coming up with new IDs. My killfile is huge these days. Exactly. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
Cecil Moore wrote:
... Master's degrees are acceptable for a lot of university teaching jobs. However, Bachelor's degrees alone are often not acceptable. Cecil: Why that Masters may make you suitable for the position, if a suitable doctorate shows up--hes' got the job ... Too bad too, I have met a lot of Masters I would like to work with, more so than the disagreeable doctorate they hired :( Regards, JS |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
John Smith I wrote:
Why (while?) that Masters may make you suitable for the position, if a suitable doctorate shows up--hes' got the job ... Probably not for the same salary cap. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote: Why (while?) that Masters may make you suitable for the position, if a suitable doctorate shows up--hes' got the job ... Probably not for the same salary cap. :-) Cecil: OH YEAH. I do envy that salary cap! LOL Regards, JS |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
wrote:
... time will tell but I have no indiaction that the code wars are over merely about to move to another front right now I can't be what the problem is or will be I oppose the osrt of elist moderation I prrefer to discuss radio I am willing to forgive most any that ask for it and give second to some them without that but I have to see that a possible soluation exists I don't see that yet Regards, JS http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ Mark: No. I think you can stop the "high school stuff." I seen your arguments in the proposals, you CAN do better. Amateur radio needs help, so help ... Regards, JS |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
On Jan 28, 7:45�am, Cecil Moore wrote: John Smith I wrote: --strange they ALL seem to have extra licenses, isn't it?Isn't it slightly analogous to universities preferring teachers with PhD degrees? -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com Not even close, Cecil. The FCC was NEVER chartered as an academic organization. LA |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
Cecil Moore wrote in
. net: Michael Black wrote: It would take a pretty incapable person to not be able to tell the difference between what was on-topic and what doesn't belong. So is a discussion on the nature of the quantum structure of empty space on-topic for an antenna group? Is a strict on or off topic message grounds for not being allowed to post? Quantum structure of empty space can be a fascinating direction for a thread to wander into. Have the moderators said they would not allow such a post? The moderation group effort didn't come about due to that. More like a few posters who have deep seated problems, as well as a willingness to ebomb the group(s). Until I discovered Xnews, I just found this newsgroup not worth the effort to read. Whereas most readers were happy to allow this group to be a Black hole of Calcutta, the miscreants were starting to spread their cancer to all the ham newsgroups. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
"Dee Flint" wrote:
You will notice that the most vehement of those opposing the moderated news group are those that have the worst behavior. It seems that all they really want is to insure that they have targets to continue their tactics. 100% dead on accurate analysis. 73 KH6HZ |
Schlecks' direction on moderation
Mike Coslo wrote:
... The moderation group effort didn't come about due to that. More like a few posters who have deep seated problems, as well as a willingness to ebomb the group(s). Until I discovered Xnews, I just found this newsgroup not worth the effort to read. Whereas most readers were happy to allow this group to be a Black hole of Calcutta, the miscreants were starting to spread their cancer to all the ham newsgroups. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - Some of that alright ... However, look at the REAL problem. For decades now the extras (and wannabe generals) have pulled ARRL strings (and the reverse, self-cycling really) to control amateur radio and steer the course. Those were and are PUBLIC airwaves they grabbed. Joe Blow Public was unconcerned--they got away with it. Now we set here in the PUBLIC NEWSGROUPS. They attempt to re-implement the old strategy and find it is not working. Those USENET GODS are on to them, they see though their thinly veiled text and to their hearts. Those USENET GODS insist public newsgroups are PUBLIC ... .... end of story. Regards, JS |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:22 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com