"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