|
What's this?
I found the below FAQ on the web, but can't find the referenced newsgroup on any server? Looks like it could be the salvation of RRAP?
The Man in the Maze QRV at Baboquivari Peak, AZ __________________________________________________ _______________ Welcome to rec.radio.amateur.moderated! This is a moderated newsgroup for amateur radio operators and other people having an interest in the Amateur Radio Service, as defined by national regulations and international treaties. Following are the posting guidelines for this newsgroup. This message includes the following sections: 1. Topics and posting policies from the rec.radio.amateur.moderated Charter 2. Additional posting guidelines 2.1 Netiquette guidelines 2.2 Posting form requirements 2.3 Guidelines on signature (.sig) files 2.4 Guidelines on excessive quoting 2.5 Guidelines on pointers to outside sources 2.6 Guidelines regarding questioning someone's suitability to hold an amateur radio license 2.7 Guidelines regarding name-calling 2.8 Guidelines regarding civility 2.9 Other unacceptable topics ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Topics and posting policies from the rec.radio.amateur.moderated Charter rec.radio.amateur.moderated is an inclusive on-line community of amateur radio operators and other people having an interest in the Amateur Radio Service. Participants are invited to engage in open discussion of amateur radio issues and exchange information about participating in the hobby/service, in an atmosphere of civility, friendship, and fun. Acceptable topics include but, are not necessarily limited to, questions and discussions about amateur radio licensing, regulations, tips on various aspects of setting up an amateur radio station, and sharing operating experiences and insights. Unacceptable posts include, but are not limited to, buy/sell/trade posts, posts that are off-topic to the Amateur Radio Service, posts promoting or defending unlawful activities, etc. Crossposts of regular discussion articles between rec.radio.amateur.moderated and other discussion newsgroups are not permitted. Frequently-Asked-Questions lists and other information/bulletin/ announcement postings may be crossposted to rec.radio.info, rec.answers, and news.answers only with prior approval of the moderators of those newsgroups. In all such cases, an appropriate "Followup-To" header, containing only rec.radio.amateur.moderated, will be added by the moderators if one is not already provided. Posters are encouraged to state their own views and share their experiences, but to refrain from making assumptions about the motivations of other newsgroup participants. Posters are expected to maintain a basic tone of civility. Prohibited uncivil discourse includes, but is not limited to, name calling. Posts containing unsolicited advice questioning the right, worthiness, suitability and/or readiness of any individual (or members of any group) to be an amateur radio operator are unacceptable in this newsgroup. If an individual chooses to post asking for advice on when or whether to obtain an amateur radio license, or to participate in any type of lawful activity in the Amateur Radio Service, respondents should be careful to address their comments only to the original poster and not explicitly generalize to others in similar situations. Similarly, posts that arbitrarily declare certain classes of amateur radio licenses, or certain members of national amateur radio societies (e.g., American Radio Relay League, Radio Amateurs of Canada, Radio Society of Great Britain, Wireless Institute of Australia, etc.), to be more or less worthy than others, are not permitted. Posts that politely encourage individuals to join their local amateur radio society, or to upgrade to higher classes of amateur radio license in order to enjoy greater operating privileges, are permitted, however. Posts that contain reasoned, civil, and fact-based discussion of the activities and internal politics of national amateur radio societies are also permitted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Additional Posting Guidelines 2.1 Netiquette guidelines Participants who are new to Usenet should familiarize themselves with the "netiquette" of Usenet as well as the particular posting guidelines for this group. 2.2 Posting form requirements Any article that falls into any of the following categories will be automatically rejected: A) Articles that contain original text of more than 75 characters per line B) Crossposted articles to newsgroups not included in these Guidelines C) Articles that contain more than 400 lines D) Encoded binary files (except PGP and other short digital signatures) E) Attachments to posts F) Articles containing obscene language G) Articles from individuals who have been suspended or banned from the newsgroup 2.3 Guidelines on signature (.sig) files Many people close each article they write with a few lines of common text. This may be a cute quip or quote, or may include information about their family, contact information, or disclaimers required by their employer, for example. Signature files used on rec.radio.amateur.moderated posting must be no longer than 8 lines. 2.4 Guidelines on excessive quoting Posts more than 20 lines long that also have more than 75% quoted text will be carefully reviewed by a moderator to determine if that degree of quoting is warranted. Posts with excessive quoted text may be rejected. Posters must show a reasonable effort to trim the post they are replying to and to include just enough material to establish context. "Me too!" posts are discouraged, and, when posted, must edit the quoted material significantly. 2.5 Guidelines on pointers to outside sources Unsolicited announcements and pointers to web sites that are strictly commercial press releases, advertisements, or other public relations campaigns, are not permitted. However, a pointer to a website or other external source of information is permitted and encouraged in cases where it is relevant to an existing thread, with appropriate context being given in the post. A URL with no information about what a user should expect to find there will be rejected. A pointer to information that is off-charter for rec.radio.amateur.moderated will be rejected, as will a pointer which itself does not meet the rec.radio.amateur.moderated guidelines (such as a URL containing embedded name-calling). Moderators are not responsible for verifying the contents of any external information source. 2.6 Guidelines regarding questioning someone's suitability hold an amateur radio license Identifiable groups and individuals may not be asked/told/etc. not to obtain an amateur radio license, or to only obtain certain classes of amateur radio license. It is not permissible to make statements that a person or members of a specific group "should" not, or should not be allowed to, become an amateur radio operator. 2.7 Guidelines regarding name-calling Nastiness addressed at a person is considered name-calling. Criticizing a person's *actions* is not, provided that it is done in a civil manner. Attacks on an action which by their very nature include an accusation against the person's character are not acceptable. For example, "That's a lie" implies an intentional prevarication, and is considered name-calling. Acceptable ways of questioning the truth of a poster's statement include the more tactful "I don't think that's true," "I believe you are mistaken because..." or even simply "That's not true." "That's not true and you know it" crosses back over into name-calling, however. 2.8 Guidelines regarding civility By charter, posters are expected to maintain a civil tone in all their postings. The guidelines on name-calling cover part of that requirement, but not all of it. In general, posters are expected to consider the reputations of other participants, and refrain from making unnecessary accusations or assumptions about the motivations of others. A good rule of thumb is to phrase your comments as your opinion -- "I think..." "It seems to me that..." "This makes me wonder whether..." etc... Posters are expected to make factual claims, to debate topics openly and in good faith, and to accept honest criticism, all without provocation or prevarication. At least one professional organization, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), has recognized that such fair dealings are necessary components of ethical conduct, and has incorporated them into its Code of Ethics: http://www.ieee.org/portal/pages/about/whatis/code.html Though the Amateur Radio Service is not a professional endeavor, the moderators strongly feel that the IEEE Code of Ethics is also a worthwhile set of guiding principles for participants in the rec.radio.amateur.moderated newsgroup. |
What's this?
From: Iitoi on Tues, Dec 12 2006 6:20 am
I found the below FAQ on the web, but can't find the referenced newsgroup on any server? Looks like it could be the salvation of RRAP? I think it won't and for several reasons: 1. Nothing has been done/proposed to stop the incessant cross-posting of the same material to other news- groups. [see "Slow Code" as prime example lately] 2. Effective moderation can only be done by HOLDING all submitted messages/replies for review prior to public posting. [labor-intensive work for moderators, almost a 24-hour a day task] 3. Some moderation is possible by a mechanism where all moderators can delete postings not fitting guidelines. When the "attention-getting" posters don't see their postings in public they will be dissuaded from posting more later. Only a rare few will persist. The above would seem impossible with the Internet as-is and the wide distribution (and rapidity of such) in the 'Web. Somewhere, someplace on the 'Web such postings would remain in public view; Google can only control what is on Google. 4. As one who has a few years experience in moderation on a Bulletin Board System, moderation is possible ONLY with a "closed system," i.e., one where postings go no further than the BBS and moderators have a greater range of controls from the Sysop than do ordinary subscribers. Even then it is possible to have postings remain on-line for hours, begin more arguments and name-calling before moderators can access a 'newsgroup' to do moderator actions. Excessive non-guideline activity can only be stopped with subscriber banishment from posting, again effective in a BBS but very difficult to achieve on the Internet (that carries Usenet). 5. A search for "rec.radio.amateur.moderated" items has turned up a few messages dating back to 1998. The "idea" has been kicking around for eight years with NO real action taken. This is akin to government "study groups" doing "studies" on something for a long time and producing NOTHING tangible but lots of words and paper with NO authority to correct anything. The "idea" of a moderated group seems more like wishful thinking than anything else. ________________________________________________ ________________ Welcome to rec.radio.amateur.moderated! This is a moderated newsgroup for amateur radio operators and other people having an interest in the Amateur Radio Service, as defined by national regulations and international treaties. Following are the posting guidelines for this newsgroup. In general, I don't see any real fault (except for one) and these guidelines seem a sincere, honest effort to improve the lot of newsgroups as they exist today. 2.8 Guidelines regarding civility Posters are expected to make factual claims, to debate topics openly and in good faith, and to accept honest criticism, all without provocation or prevarication. At least one professional organization, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), has recognized that such fair dealings are necessary components of ethical conduct, and has incorporated them into its Code of Ethics: http://www.ieee.org/portal/pages/about/whatis/code.html Though the Amateur Radio Service is not a professional endeavor, the moderators strongly feel that the IEEE Code of Ethics is also a worthwhile set of guiding principles for participants in the rec.radio.amateur.moderated newsgroup. The amateur radio service is, by US federal definition, NOT a professional organization. [that is the reason the activity is named as "amateur"] Unfortunately, many amateurs have the imagination to assume they are 'professional' in their operating procedures, jargon, and (to some) their way of life, that is no more than an assumption, perhaps a fantasy of theirs. There is NO such thing as a "professional amateur," itself an oxymoron. The IEEE "Code of Ethics" is for WORK-related activity, the professional part of IEEE members. It is NOT designed as a guideline or code of conduct for messaging. It IS a guideline for ethical (and moral for the most part) BUSINESS activity. As a 33-year member of the IEEE I support that and follow it. But, neither does the IEEE "Code" require me to obey it in ALL things...including my personal opinions on politics, religion, or anything else. I retain a freedom of choice permitted (in the USA) by the Constitution of the United States. That includes a freedom of speech. It would seem obvious to me that this sudden appearance of the IEEE "Code" has come about from other newsgroupies. making unkind replies to me in here...none of which are (or have admitted to being) members of the IEEE. If there are to be "guidline references" then the Amateur's Code written by Paul Segal many decades ago should suffice. However, article two of the Amateur's Code should be re- written to apply to all or none of the amateur membership organizations, not just to patronize a particular US club. Amateur radio can be a fun, engaging, interesting hobby. But, it remains a HOBBY, not some imaginary "professional life activity." There is nothing wrong with hobbies. Many other hobby activities exist without any pretenses at being "professional." [Life Member, IEEE] |
What's this?
On Dec 13, 7:42 pm, " wrote: From: Iitoi on Tues, Dec 12 2006 6:20 am I found the below FAQ on the web, but can't find the referenced newsgroup on any server? Looks like it could be the salvation of RRAP? I think it won't and for several reasons: 1. Nothing has been done/proposed to stop the incessant cross-posting of the same material to other news- groups. [see "Slow Code" as prime example lately] No one is worried that material from a moderated group would be cross-posted elsewhere. The efforts toward establishing a moderated gropare to control what is posted to the newsgroup. 2. Effective moderation can only be done by HOLDING all submitted messages/replies for review prior to public posting. [labor-intensive work for moderators, almost a 24-hour a day task] That's the idea, Len, and it isn't a 24/7 task. 3. Some moderation is possible by a mechanism where all moderators can delete postings not fitting guidelines. When the "attention-getting" posters don't see their postings in public they will be dissuaded from posting more later. Only a rare few will persist. That's the idea, Len. The above would seem impossible with the Internet as-is and the wide distribution (and rapidity of such) in the 'Web. Somewhere, someplace on the 'Web such postings would remain in public view; Google can only control what is on Google. Nobody is worried about the material from the new group being in public view. The idea is to control the input, not the output. There would be no more "koks on parade". There'd be no more "Marqueer" or "Not C*********Lloyd". I'm pretty certain that anyone using terms like "Mother Superior", "Church of St. Hiram", "Colonel Klunk"or "Herr Robust" would likely disappear from the ranks of posters. 4. As one who has a few years experience in moderation on a Bulletin Board System, moderation is possible ONLY with a "closed system," i.e., one where postings go no further than the BBS and moderators have a greater range of controls from the Sysop than do ordinary subscribers. Even then it is possible to have postings remain on-line for hours, begin more arguments and name-calling before moderators can access a 'newsgroup' to do moderator actions. Excessive non-guideline activity can only be stopped with subscriber banishment from posting, again effective in a BBS but very difficult to achieve on the Internet (that carries Usenet). It is very, very easy to put into practice. If your post doesn't meet the moderator's idea of a proper post, it would never be seen. 5. A search for "rec.radio.amateur.moderated" items has turned up a few messages dating back to 1998. The "idea" has been kicking around for eight years with NO real action taken. This is akin to government "study groups" doing "studies" on something for a long time and producing NOTHING tangible but lots of words and paper with NO authority to correct anything. The "idea" of a moderated group seems more like wishful thinking than anything else. Yet there is material in this latest proposal which indicates that it is very, very new. I think you'll find that there is little of wishful thinking in the proposal. ________________________________________________ ________________ Welcome to rec.radio.amateur.moderated! This is a moderated newsgroup for amateur radio operators and other people having an interest in the Amateur Radio Service, as defined by national regulations and international treaties. Following are the posting guidelines for this newsgroup. In general, I don't see any real fault (except for one) and these guidelines seem a sincere, honest effort to improve the lot of newsgroups as they exist today. 2.8 Guidelines regarding civility Posters are expected to make factual claims, to debate topics openly and in good faith, and to accept honest criticism, all without provocation or prevarication. At least one professional organization, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), has recognized that such fair dealings are necessary components of ethical conduct, and has incorporated them into its Code of Ethics: http://www.ieee.org/portal/pages/about/whatis/code.html Though the Amateur Radio Service is not a professional endeavor, the moderators strongly feel that the IEEE Code of Ethics is also a worthwhile set of guiding principles for participants in the rec.radio.amateur.moderated newsgroup. The amateur radio service is, by US federal definition, NOT a professional organization. [that is the reason the activity is named as "amateur"] Unfortunately, many amateurs have the imagination to assume they are 'professional' in their operating procedures, jargon, and (to some) their way of life, that is no more than an assumption, perhaps a fantasy of theirs. There is NO such thing as a "professional amateur," itself an oxymoron. That's pretty much the kind of thing which leads me to believe that your presence on the moderated group would last about three rounds. You'd likely be cautioned once or twice, then you'd be gone. The IEEE "Code of Ethics" is for WORK-related activity, the professional part of IEEE members. It is NOT designed as a guideline or code of conduct for messaging. Nothing precludes its use for such purposes. It IS a guideline for ethical (and moral for the most part) BUSINESS activity. Show me a man who uses ethical behavior only in his business dealings and not in his private life and I'll show you an unethical man. As a 33-year member of the IEEE I support that and follow it. But, neither does the IEEE "Code" require me to obey it in ALL things...including my personal opinions on politics, religion, or anything else. I retain a freedom of choice permitted (in the USA) by the Constitution of the United States. That includes a freedom of speech. Your freedom of speech is limited by the terms of service of your internet service provider. It is limited by any oaths you've taken to government. It is limited by a moderated newsgroup and would be limited by an amateur radio license, if you had one. Now what? It would seem obvious to me that this sudden appearance of the IEEE "Code" has come about from other newsgroupies. making unkind replies to me in here...none of which are (or have admitted to being) members of the IEEE. Are you having memory problems, Len? The IEEE Code of Conduct was brought up in *response to your unkind words toward others". If there are to be "guidline references" then the Amateur's Code written by Paul Segal many decades ago should suffice. How would those apply to you, Leonard? You aren't a radio amateur. However, article two of the Amateur's Code should be re- written to apply to all or none of the amateur membership organizations, not just to patronize a particular US club. The Code was written by a staunch ARRL supporter. Either you'd like it used or you wouldn't. No one is going to rewrite it to please Leonard H. Anderson, a fellow who is not a radio amateur or an ARRL member. Amateur radio can be a fun, engaging, interesting hobby. But, it remains a HOBBY... ....or so you've been told or so you've read. ...not some imaginary "professional life activity." There is nothing wrong with hobbies. Many other hobby activities exist without any pretenses at being "professional." The only person who regulary writes "PROFESSIONAL" here is Leonard H. Anderson. [Life Member, IEEE] This newsgroup deals with amateur radio. Its topic has nothing to do with "PROFESSIONAL" electronics organizations. Dave K8MN |
What's this?
|
What's this?
|
cyber vandalism Was: "what's this?" Untill KB9RQZ Hijacked the Subject Line
|
What's this?
In . com " writes:
From: Iitoi on Tues, Dec 12 2006 6:20 am I found the below FAQ on the web, but can't find the referenced newsgroup on any server? Looks like it could be the salvation of RRAP? Looks like someone found the final draft copy of the Posting Guidelines for the proposed moderated newsgroup, which I previously posted to misc.test.moderated and referred to in my previous reply to Len the other day. I think it won't and for several reasons: 1. Nothing has been done/proposed to stop the incessant cross-posting of the same material to other news- groups. [see "Slow Code" as prime example lately] A new moderated newsgroup can only reasonably address the contents of its own newsgroup. About the only leverage that moderators can exert on the posters to unmoderated newsgroups would be a "universal conduct clause" in egregious cases (no white-listing on the moderated newsgroup for such users) and prohibiting inappropriate crossposting and followups (by using moderation software to automatically screen the Newsgroups: and Followup-To: headers). The misc.kids.moderated newsgroup (from which these Posting Guidelines were adapted, with permission), has been successful since at least 1999 through the use of: - a team of moderators - clear, objective, and fair editorial criteria - use of standard, proven, multi-moderator moderation software (Secure, Team-Based Usenet Moderation Program, aka "STUMP") - white-listing and black-listing, with fair and objective standards for adding users to both (three good articles or three bad articles would result in nomination to the white-list or the black-list, respectively) 2. Effective moderation can only be done by HOLDING all submitted messages/replies for review prior to public posting. [labor-intensive work for moderators, almost a 24-hour a day task] It's not necessary to do this 24/7. We can guarantee reasonable message latency that will not interrupt the flow of discussion, especially if we have a team of moderators distributed across time zones. Those submitters who wish faster turnaround can meet (and continue to comply with) the reasonable requirements for white-listing. Over time, the newsgroup's readership will quickly fall into the following three categories: - white-listed (poster is trusted to have his articles go right through without moderator intervention, optionally with PGP signature verification) - black-listed (poster is automatically blocked from the newsgroup, and his articles will be returned unread) - posters not white-listed or black-listed will have their articles drop into a queue for a moderator to manually review, and make an appropriate approval or rejection decision by pressing buttons on a web interface The last category should get smaller with time. White-listing will not prevent us from applying automated sanity checking (via Spamassassin, Procmail, and STUMP) to guard against forgeries, abuse, and newsgroup charter violations. If someone abuses our trust, they will certainly not be white-listed for very long after. STUMP also allows us to shut down threads once they have run their course, also by automatically rejecting and returning articles to the submitters. I suspect that closing threads after a reasonable amount of time will be the principal means of editorial quality control, versus rejecting specific posts. 3. Some moderation is possible by a mechanism where all moderators can delete postings not fitting guidelines. When the "attention-getting" posters don't see their postings in public they will be dissuaded from posting more later. Only a rare few will persist. The above would seem impossible with the Internet as-is and the wide distribution (and rapidity of such) in the 'Web. Somewhere, someplace on the 'Web such postings would remain in public view; Google can only control what is on Google. If you're arguing that unauthenticated (i.e., non-NoCeM) cancellation is dead on the modern-day Usenet, then you would be correct. The best solution is to prevent those who will misbehave from posting to the newsgroup in the first place. Hence the white-listing/black-listing/ manual review scheme described above. It is possible to forge articles to moderated newsgroups. However, there are several mitigations: - PGPMoose and NoCeM, which we have set up and intend to use, can automatically detect forgeries and send authenticated ("NoCeM") cancels. - The originating news server sites are generally very receptive to complaints about such forgeries, and will usually take swift action to prevent someone from doing it more than once. If PGPMoose checking fails, the moderators have recourse to report the offender to their ISP. This can even be done automatically. - It is not possible to forge articles to moderated newsgroups from Google Groups. 4. As one who has a few years experience in moderation on a Bulletin Board System, moderation is possible ONLY with a "closed system," i.e., one where postings go no further than the BBS and moderators have a greater range of controls from the Sysop than do ordinary subscribers. Even then it is possible to have postings remain on-line for hours, begin more arguments and name-calling before moderators can access a 'newsgroup' to do moderator actions. Excessive non-guideline activity can only be stopped with subscriber banishment from posting, again effective in a BBS but very difficult to achieve on the Internet (that carries Usenet). Once someone is black-listed in STUMP, his articles will be automatically rejected and bounced back to him unread. No moderator intervention, or aggravation, required. 5. A search for "rec.radio.amateur.moderated" items has turned up a few messages dating back to 1998. The "idea" has been kicking around for eight years with NO real action taken. This is akin to government "study groups" doing "studies" on something for a long time and producing NOTHING tangible but lots of words and paper with NO authority to correct anything. The "idea" of a moderated group seems more like wishful thinking than anything else. I've been seriously looking into the matter since at least 2002. The biggest obstacle was simply finding volunteers who were interested, had the time, had appropriate access at their ISP, and were technically savvy. The use of moderation software like STUMP (with its Web interface) mitigated the ISP access and technical savvy parts, freeing me to recruit interested people with good conduct and a good sense of what constitutes good conduct. All they need to do is read articles and push buttons. We have a moderation team, and will be passing along a Request for Discussion for the news.announce.newgroups moderator to post to news shortly after the first of the year. At that point, it will be a specific, concrete, proposal, with the members of our team identified, and our charter and objective editorial criteria clearly laid out. The readers can then read our proposal and provide meaningful feedback. No wishful thinking required. In addition, the STUMP software is available for anyone to test now by sending submissions to: We would be happy to demonstrate approval, rejection, white-listing, black-listing, PGP signing, NoCeM cancellation, etc., to any interested individual. Currently the target newsgroup is misc.test.moderated. _______________________________________________ _________________ Welcome to rec.radio.amateur.moderated! This is a moderated newsgroup for amateur radio operators and other people having an interest in the Amateur Radio Service, as defined by national regulations and international treaties. Following are the posting guidelines for this newsgroup. In general, I don't see any real fault (except for one) and these guidelines seem a sincere, honest effort to improve the lot of newsgroups as they exist today. 2.8 Guidelines regarding civility Posters are expected to make factual claims, to debate topics openly and in good faith, and to accept honest criticism, all without provocation or prevarication. At least one professional organization, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), has recognized that such fair dealings are necessary components of ethical conduct, and has incorporated them into its Code of Ethics: http://www.ieee.org/portal/pages/about/whatis/code.html Though the Amateur Radio Service is not a professional endeavor, the moderators strongly feel that the IEEE Code of Ethics is also a worthwhile set of guiding principles for participants in the rec.radio.amateur.moderated newsgroup. The amateur radio service is, by US federal definition, NOT a professional organization. [that is the reason the activity is named as "amateur"] Unfortunately, many amateurs have the imagination to assume they are 'professional' in their operating procedures, jargon, and (to some) their way of life, that is no more than an assumption, perhaps a fantasy of theirs. There is NO such thing as a "professional amateur," itself an oxymoron. The IEEE "Code of Ethics" is for WORK-related activity, the professional part of IEEE members. It is NOT designed as a guideline or code of conduct for messaging. It IS a guideline for ethical (and moral for the most part) BUSINESS activity. As a 33-year member of the IEEE I support that and follow it. But, neither does the IEEE "Code" require me to obey it in ALL things...including my personal opinions on politics, religion, or anything else. I retain a freedom of choice permitted (in the USA) by the Constitution of the United States. That includes a freedom of speech. It would seem obvious to me that this sudden appearance of the IEEE "Code" has come about from other newsgroupies. making unkind replies to me in here...none of which are (or have admitted to being) members of the IEEE. If there are to be "guidline references" then the Amateur's Code written by Paul Segal many decades ago should suffice. However, article two of the Amateur's Code should be re- written to apply to all or none of the amateur membership organizations, not just to patronize a particular US club. That's why the Posting Guidelines state: "Posters are not required to support the American Radio Relay League (ARRL). However, they are expected to adhere to the spirit of the other parts of the ARRL's 'Amateur's Code'" Note the part about not having to support the ARRL. Amateur radio can be a fun, engaging, interesting hobby. But, it remains a HOBBY, not some imaginary "professional life activity." There is nothing wrong with hobbies. Many other hobby activities exist without any pretenses at being "professional." That's why the Posting Guidelines state: "Though the Amateur Radio Service is not a professional endeavor, the moderators strongly feel that the IEEE Code of Ethics is also a worthwhile set of guiding principles for participants in the rec.radio.amateur.moderated newsgroup." Note the words "worthwhile set of guiding principles" and within the context of the moderated newsgroup only. We're not presuming to police all of amateur radio. While we don't expect to have significant problems with, for example, non-compliance with part 4 of the IEEE Code: 4. to reject bribery in all its forms; we do expect that compliance with parts 7, 8, and 9: 7. to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others; 8. to treat fairly all persons regardless of such factors as race, religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin; 9. to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action; will weigh very heavily on our decision whether to approve a given submitter's articles, and certainly whether that submitter should be white-listed. Do you really feel that it would seriously crimp your ability to express yourself if you were not able: 7. to avoid, refuse, and withhold honest criticism of technical work, to deny and ignore errors, and to credit improperly the contributions of others; 8. to treat unfairly all persons particularly of such factors as race, religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin; 9. to seek injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action; ? As someone else pointed out in this thread, situational ethics are practically no ethics at all. [Life Member, IEEE] -- Paul W. Schleck, K3FU http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ Finger for PGP Public Key |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com