Michael Black wrote:
I would point out that while I basically try to tune it out, it would
seem there are attempts at "censorship" here, in the spews by a few
people who just think by repeated postings attacking other posters they
can get their way.

Your quotes around "censorship" indicate that you
understand that only the government can truly censor
anything. Changes made by the moderators of a posting
group might more accurately be called editing, as
letters to the editor are rejected or edited by an
editor who is employed by the owners of a newspaper.

The moderators of qrz.com have, from time to time,
suggested that I edit my own postings. :-) With
freedom (of speech) comes responsibility. I forget
which founding father first said that.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Black wrote:
I would point out that while I basically try to tune it out, it would
seem there are attempts at "censorship" here, in the spews by a few
people who just think by repeated postings attacking other posters they
can get their way.

Your quotes around "censorship" indicate that you
understand that only the government can truly censor
anything. Changes made by the moderators of a posting
group might more accurately be called editing, as
letters to the editor are rejected or edited by an
editor who is employed by the owners of a newspaper.

Well said Cecil!

An excellent point.

The moderators of qrz.com have, from time to time,
suggested that I edit my own postings. :-)

I cannot imagine why.....;-)

With
freedom (of speech) comes responsibility. I forget
which founding father first said that.

With every freedom comes responsibility.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Cecil Moore wrote:
...
suggested that I edit my own postings. :-) With
freedom (of speech) comes responsibility. I forget
which founding father first said that.

Responsibility yes. But, I am sure there are as many definitions of
freedom of speech as there are mindsets.

I should think that what should be meant by this "responsibility" is
that one never uses his/her right of that freedom to infringe upon
others. I think it further implies that one defend it as those before
he/she did to insure its' availability to all others. I think that for
one to claim title and use of "freedom of speech" he or she must be
above the evil temptation of censorship and "editing" to fit ones own
purpose.

Thankfully, evil individuals and groups are rather easy to identify,
they usually can be known from their deeds, endeavors and willingness to
grant to others, what they so rightfully claim inheritance to.

I should think there is also a responsibility to use that freedom to
chase out falsehoods and self serving individuals who attempt to subdue
it to their evil purposes. Indeed, a very hideous example of this is in
how some have changed "free speech" into "politically correct." I am
sure the forefathers are turning in their graves over that perversion of
what is meant for good--turned to evil.

I have heard a few good and noble men state, in rather few words, what
the true intent and meaning of "free speech" is. I don't remember their
words verbatim, however, I can give enough so one can get the gist of
their meaning and intents, as follows:

"Although I may disagree with you on one or more accounts--or even all
your points, I will, with my life--if necessary, defend your right to
say it."

Since mankinds birth and surely until his kinds death, I doubt we shall
ever see a better definition ...

Humble regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
Thankfully, evil individuals and groups are rather easy to identify,

Non-Christians are easy to identify - they don't
forgive their enemies, e.g. George Bush.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Michael Black wrote:
Cecil Moore ) writes:
James D. wrote:
My prediction is that your moderated group will initially attract a few
like-minded Hams, but will ultimately suffer from disinterest and boredom
and fade into oblivion within a year at most.

The qrz.com groups, including the Q&A group, is moderated.
They have been pretty successful. There are presently 108
topics in the Q&A section many with 30+ replies.

I won't go near moderated newsgroups, but on the other hand, it's hardly
"censorship" when they are created in response to all kinds of junk
in a newsgroup that is there because people have no sense of self-control.

There is ultimately a big difference between saying what you want to say,
and saying what you want to say even if it has no relevance to the topic
at hand. It's the latter that have damaged this newsgroup (with overflow
to some of the other newsgroups).


indeed that has been the tacti cof most of the procoders for a decade
roughly

Jim posts over and over the same attacks because len once dared to make
a proposal that Jim has never gotten out of his head

Heil in most of his posts goes on and on about why a given poster
should not be allowed to have his opinion heard or considered

Roesbon and Wismen and few other tryo to turn NG in a discussion of
their target sexuality or threat against their person life

KH6HZ wrote:
"Michael Black" wrote:

I would point out that while I basically try to tune it out, it would
seem there are attempts at "censorship" here, in the spews by a few
people who just think by repeated postings attacking other posters they
can get their way.

Putting most of the nitwits in your killfile accomplishes the same thing,
and when you do this, this newsgroup is amazingly quiet.

Gentlemen can agree to disagree without the personal attacks and
name-calling. Unfortunately, the hate that has rotted the minds of a few
tends to carry forth into public forums.

well you are no gentleman Jeff with your insistance on the one way
attacks everyone that oposes code is lazy and you obvious canard that
anybody can learn code with enough will

and yet you you seem to feel this ability is unquinge to morse Code

My name isn't Jeff.