In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...
N2EY wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

N2EY wrote:

In article .net,

"KØHB"

writes:

(I know he's playing devil's advocate, but something
that's repeated often enough sometimes catches on and I don't want to
see Jim end up being the best salesman for something that I know he
doesn't want to see any more than I do ...)


So you're just asking me to shut up. Is that what we have to look for in
the
amateur radio of the 21st century?

That is how I read it also. You (we) are being told to just keep quiet,
and that if we say anything, it will be our fault if the things we are
warning about come to pass.

Yep. That's exactly the way I read, you (Mike) read it, and you (Jim) read
it. Probably more than just us. BUT, are we surprised? That is status quo
in at least this group of people--i.e. rather common practice in this
newsgroup to desire that someone "shut up" if that opinion is coming from an
opposite or challenging side.

I don't think I've ever told anyone here to shut up.

But I have seen others do it. For example:

From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 28 Oct 2003 04:35:14 GMT

(in response to K8MN):

"Shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel. Learn to READ English."

Just the kind we want for newcomers, huh? New standards of civil debate.


To which I would ask Carl and Hans:

Do you really think people are so stupid that they won't think of
something unless Jim Miccollis says it?

(One "L" in the name)

That's a good question, but it really isn't the point. *Whether* people
"are so stupid that they won't think of something unless Jim Miccollis says
it," or not, Jim has--anyone has--the perfect right to say whatever they'd
like.

Thanks, Kim.

73 de Jim, N2EY