Is it really harder [to find trashy books]? Have you ever visited a pornographic book store? If not, do you deny they are out there or what kind of books are distributed? Have you ever seen 'The People versus Larry Flynt'?
And there's a lot of stuff published by hate groups and other extremists, too. Do we give up freedom of speech to keep this stuff from being disseminated?
If we shot everyone who was wrong about something, most of us would be dead, wouldn't we?
There are telephone users who are quite malicious (ask the telephone company as they have to investigate obscene and/or harrassing callers from time to time), their are licensed automobile drivers who are quite malicious (I've nearly been hit by more than a few), there are truck drivers who are quite malicious (and I drove eighteen wheelers for just under a year and I know), there are police officers who are quite malicious, and the list goes on and on. But for the most part, the intentionally malicious ones are very much in the minority. And I've had more than one police or security officer in trouble with his superiors over completely inappropriate behavior that I observed. That is because I determined it was inappropriate and I dealt with it by contacting superiors. What if I hadn't been afforded the opportunity to learn to be able to determine that it was indeed wrong? The behavior they exhibited and inflicted upon others would have continued.
I once wrote an article that was published (in Telecom Digest) about how I had been confronted by someone who was only pretending to be a police officer so he could cut in front of a long row of people in line at the drive through. Because of the training I'd received in the Citizen's Academy program (at the county police academy), it only took me a moment or two to determine that he was a phony. I called the county police and had them after him. The county police checked him out (through the license tag number I provided them) and determined that I was absolutely right, that he was not a police officer. They were able to investigate him and deal with the matter because I had learned to make a good call on something like that.
And it goes back to not believing everything you read or hear. Kids have to learn to balance it sometime. Depriving them of that information robs them of the chance to learn to decide for themselves.
When my mother taught English, she was called into the principal's office one day and asked if 'The Scarlet Letter' was actually on her approved reading list. She said that it was. The principal was shocked. Then she asked him if he'd ever read 'The Scarlet Letter'. His reply was that he had not. Hmm. And he believed that kids shouldn't be reading it? Based upon having never read it himself?
And what about schools that took books like that off the library shelves? What about Huckleberry Finn? Tom Sawyer? And the list goes on and on? With Mark Twain's writing style as it was, it would be be considered quite racist by today's standards. Do we censor it? Of course not.
And it is the reader's job to decide how they feel about who is posting or writing and whether their views should be taken seriously. It is not anyone else's perogative to decide for them. There isn't anyone on Telecom Digest that I agree with one hundred per cent of the time.
Are we really protecting the kids when we deprive them of the opportunity to learn to decide for themselves? Or are we going to have to protect them from it all their lives? And if they don't learn, who's going to protect *their* kids? And what about when we pass on and leave them to their own judgement?
There never is that guarantee at any time. In fact, it rarely happens.
You should think about how you were perceived, since he said that to you.
What you say about books having audit trails is not always true. There are a number of books written with unsupported information.
When I was doing two-way radio work, I was frequently approached by Citizen's Banders asking for help with their radio equipment. I always declined, citing that I couldn't do it on company time (on the advice of my immediate superiors).
Some of the things these CBers would tell me (and the other very experienced radio technicians I worked with) were off this planet. One told me that the trucker's antennas were for keeping you from messing up your SWR while you have a 'huge metallic load' behind you. Another told a coworker of mine that putting an audio amplifier between your microphone and your radio caused more output power to the radio because there was more input power to the audio.
I rarely tried to explain to them the error of their information because about two thirds of the time they would tell you you didn't know what you were talking about even though you were a licensed and trained radio technician.
But, I'd never deprive them of their right to write about this, ignorant as it is.
If the kids don't learn about radio theory, how could they learn to tell that this information is wrong? These people obviously never had. So depriving them of access to information about ham radio on QSL Net (most of which is written by people who have been examined by the FCC and found to have a reasonable understanding of radio theory) is a 'good thing'? I don't think so.
So, no one should exercise an opinion because it *might* be wrong? Is that what you are actually saying?
Regarding divestiture, I'd have to disagree with your position. Have you ever studied economics and the principles thereof?
The telephone system never improved all that much over the years (at least, to the perception of the end user) until the Bell companies had to compete. Thus, competition played a big role in bringing prices down. And the end user got a lot more say so about his/her telephone service(s) and got what they wanted at prices they could afford. I remember when an answering machine could only be provided and installed by the phone company. The cost was enormous and there were no other alternatives. Then came Carterphone, thank goodness. And then came competition between carriers ... and the walls came a tumbling down (with apologies to 'Joshua').
Because everyone was trying to provide something that the other carriers didn't provide (to target their niche in the marketplace), the technology began to develop and new things were offered. I often doubt that we'd have ever seen the Internet if the industry hadn't become competitive (or at least not for many more years to come).
And it is for the reader to judge as it appears that you did in this case (which is fine). But you haven't the right to decide for me whether I should believe it is true or not or for you to censor it because you don't agree with it. In this case, I happen to agree with you. But then, I might not have on another issue or two.
No. War boards rarely do. But 'moderating' doesn't mean censorship. It means governing behavior so that all points of view can be presented in a non-hostile and constructive manner. A good moderator regulates behavior more so than content.
And with that, I'll point out that I just paid Mr. Townson a big complement. Thanks, Pat, for doing such an effective job of moderating. Pat generally publishes even in the event he is in complete disagreement with the user. He might attach opposing comments from the editor's desk, but that's what it's all about.
He published yours even though he took issue with your position, didn't he, Lisa?
Fred
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here is a question for the collected readership: _If_ Bell had not gotten divested, and was still in charge of most everything relating to telecommunications, what would the internet be like today? Would it all be run by 'the telephone company'? Would we be getting all our attachments and peripherals from the telephone company? I suggest that might be the case. What do the rest of you think? PAT]