|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
eHam.net Survey
|
Survey Question
|
|
Should the ability to post a comment following an eham.net article be removed?
Posted: Sep 24, 2008
(1500 votes, 137 comments)
by AA9OC
|
|
Survey Results
|
|
No. Allow the comments to be posted.
|
21% (314)
|
|
Yes. Remove the ability to post a comment.
|
5% (77)
|
|
Allow comments from registered users with a legitimate, verified ham call as a user name only.
|
62% (927)
|
|
I don't care, let them argue!
|
12% (182)
|
|
|
|
Survey Comments
|
|
Subscribing to post
|
|
My 2 cents. I use to have my call on here and had one of your registered nuts stalk me. Never will I post a call where a nut job can get complete home address and phone number. Wake up people some of these people on here are nuts.
Posted by
TIMEWILLTELL
on April 8, 2009
|
|
|
"It is foolishly impractical especially when you pursuit ideals engrained since childhood." -D.G. Stella/KG4CLD
This is a Amateur Radio hobby, and "EHAM.NET" was designed by amateur radio operators (ARO), so that ARO's could share thoughts and ideas regarding the Amateur Radio hobby. I think allowing non-licensed users is a positive way to expose newcommers to the hobby, but limit their access. Allow them to view surveys and comments, but don't allow them to post comments. If they want to post comments and generally get involved, then they will have to become licensed. This way their comment are posted along with their callsign.
"NO HIDING BEHIND SECRET IDENTITIES!!!"
Posted by
KG4CLD
on March 3, 2009
|
|
I'm wrong
|
Chris-K1CJS,
My apologies here too. I was in the wrong. You were in the right for pointing out my error. I don't expect to be forgiven for my errors. Just the opportunity to admit my fault.
Terry
Posted by
KE5NUC
on October 24, 2008
|
|
NA1Q'S COMMENTS
|
NA1Q, I re-read what I wrote regarding your post.
I didn't mean it to come out like that.
Sometimes I speak BEFORE I think.
I honestly just wish folks could be nice.
Best 73 ES God Bless!!
PLANKEYE
Posted by
PLANKEYE
on October 18, 2008
|
|
You are pointless...
|
|
Indeed you're pointless Princess. Don't go away mad. Just go away. Run along now.
Posted by
AE5EH
on October 18, 2008
|
|
|
|
Keep it up with the namecalling, Terry. You're just proving my point.
Posted by
K1CJS
on October 18, 2008
|
|
If you can't handle it........
|
"To those interested--especially the admins of the site--the post I refer to is this one titled:
"The *auld* fools have spoken....again!"
Posted by K1CJS on October 18, 2008
Another good example
AE5EH, Terry Perry wrote:
"..... why don't you consider subscribing? It's the least you can do for spending so much time here."
I used to be subscribed here, but the self imagined experts, the omnicient, fowl mouth know it alls SUCH AS YOU caused me to drop my subscription. You see, it isn't the people who don't identify themselves, its the brash people like you who don't know where to stop--or when--who are destroying this site. And I'll be damned if I'm going to pay a site that won't put a stop to posts such as the one the quote I just made here came from.
Have a nice day.
Posted by K1CJS on October 18, 2008"
Well Princess, if you can't handle it, then don't start it. Or perhaps, don't go away mad, just go away.
Again, but in part this time for clarity,
"From the Chrissy Princess eham profile:
When I'm not on the radio, you can normally find me...
The way this site has 'declined' in the last few years is one reason I won't come here much anymore................"
Which is it Princess? Seems like you're here a lot for someone that thinks eham is so horrible.
Do yourself a favor Princess and try this approach:
Spend some time in the books and with your equipment (if you have any). Get some basic theory down on general antenna system design principals. Or for starters, go buy the ARRL Antenna Handbook. I just bought my son one from Fry's Electronics. Learn the use of the Enzec Software. Model some simple antennas. Build'em. Try'em out. Open up that part of your mind a little there Princess. At least that way you could talk somewhat intelligently about them, instead of all that nonsense you post even in the recent antenna articles that don't relate on a technical basis with the articles at all. You post and post, but you don't say anything. What are you trying to contribute Princess? Inquiring minds want to know. Still waiting for those technical gems Princess. Got any yet?
Chrissy Princess says, in part:
"but the self imagined experts...."
How so princess? Didn't mommy teach you there is no "perfect", nor are there any "experts". What are you imagining Princess? You know with many things Princess, and antennas being only just a trifle of those many things, the more you learn about them, the more you discover you don't know. Perhaps, a self humbling sort of thing, no? But you have to make an effort to learn Princess. No one can do it for you. Right?
Now run along Princess, have mommy pour you a glass of milk, and give you a fig newton. Calm your "iddy, biddy, widdle" nerves. You've spent too much time again here for someone who claims they don't spend much time here.
Go take a nap. It'll all be better after while.
Ta, ta, Princess,
Terry-AE5EH
Posted by
AE5EH
on October 18, 2008
|
|
|
To those interested--especially the admins of the site--the post I refer to is this one titled:
"The *auld* fools have spoken....again!"
Posted by
K1CJS
on October 18, 2008
|
|
Another good example
|
AE5EH, Terry Perry wrote:
"..... why don't you consider subscribing? It's the least you can do for spending so much time here."
I used to be subscribed here, but the self imagined experts, the omnicient, fowl mouth know it alls SUCH AS YOU caused me to drop my subscription. You see, it isn't the people who don't identify themselves, its the brash people like you who don't know where to stop--or when--who are destroying this site. And I'll be damned if I'm going to pay a site that won't put a stop to posts such as the one the quote I just made here came from.
Have a nice day.
Posted by
K1CJS
on October 18, 2008
|
|
IT'S NOTTHE WEBSITE
|
I read your comment NA1Q:
It's not the Website's fault.
You take a Ham Radio, turn it on for Boy Scouts, and you expected to hear what?
You heard the same people who are on this Site, just with a Mic.
It's about who YOU are and how YOU control YOURSELF!!
It's about RESPECT for others!
Either you have it or you don't!!
It's very simple!
THINK!!
Have a nice weekend Guys!
PLANKEYE
Posted by
PLANKEYE
on October 17, 2008
|
|
After reading these comments
|
After reading these comments just for a simple survey question leaves me with one opinion about this site.
Unfortunately I'm sure that what i am about to say will infuriate some, cause others to think, and maybe something will happen.
In my opinion reading the above comments, the people on this site are honest and good intentioned hams. Unfortunately, the moderators and people posting aren't doing the site any good by keeping the comments clean and family oriented. Think about this, would you introduce your hobby of amateur radio to your kids or grandkids, neighbors,or local 2nd grade class with some of the comments being raised here? I once turned the radio on to demo HF to a group of Boy Scouts one weekend only to hear 2 hams rip each other apart because they couldn't resist the urge to think before speaking. I know at least 3 or 4 amateurs who were listening that day, and when I explained what I was trying to do, they themselves were rather embarrassed about how it looked to a potential group of new hams. Now I come over here to eHam.net and see the same thing. I think that everyone here should think about what they write and then realize that it's not just you and the computer, it's you and everyone else logging into the site and looking at what a couple "dummies" wrote to belittle someone else for commenting or posting an article to help inform everyone else out there who is interested.
Due to what I have seen in the past couple years, I am very embarrassed to even recommend this site to anyone looking for information about the hobby, not because of the information or the format, but because of all the unnecessary remarks that are put on after the article is written.
Posted by
NA1Q
on October 16, 2008
|
|
DUDE GIVE ME A LIGHT
|
THIS IS PLANKEYE:
Dudes, you all have forgotten the most important thing.
YOU!!
Think about it!!
It's about what YOU DO with your words.
YOU!!
Good Luck Guys!!
____________
Wake up Ray, and hand me that hitter brother!!
PLANKEYE
Posted by
PLANKEYE
on October 12, 2008
|
|
|
AI2IA said "You folks steering eHam.net can see this thread. You can see what it looks like. You can see the statistics. The next move, if any, is really up to you people. "
I agree, and removing trolls like you and K1CJS would be a good start...
Posted by
RADIO123US
on October 12, 2008
|
|
Stating the obvious...again?
|
"Administrators' move
You folks steering eHam.net can see this thread. You can see what it looks like. You can see the statistics. The next move, if any, is really up to you people.
Posted by AI2IA on October 12, 2008"
Brilliant and profound observation! I'll have to put on my sunglasses for that one!
Posted by
AE5EH
on October 12, 2008
|
|
Administrators' move
|
|
You folks steering eHam.net can see this thread. You can see what it looks like. You can see the statistics. The next move, if any, is really up to you people.
Posted by
AI2IA
on October 12, 2008
|
|
The *auld* fools have spoken....again!
|
"Where it all stands
To K1CJS and others who get disgusted with the trash posts on eHam.net:
It is really up to the administrators of the site to clean it up and keep it clean. If they are satisfied with a certain level of trash, aside from a survey, there is not much anyone can do about it.
With that said, keep in mind that it is the empty barrels that make the most noise here as elsewhere. Some mistakenly think that by using strong language they are demonstrating their personal power. Of course, they are mentally blind to how stupid and inadequate they appear through their posts. The gadflies with their juvenile tauntings are equally as ridiculous.
If or until the administrators clean up the trash posts from the site, good, sincere hams should continue to post their views and opinions and simply not directly address any of these immature egotists. Ignore them. This way stable, mature hams can continue to get some good from the material presented. By ignoring them, you deny them recognition and keep them under control.
Posted by AI2IA on October 12, 2008
Last words.....
I never intended to drag this insult fest out people, and I apologise for it. However, to AE5EH, Plankeye and especially Radio123:
You can't stay young forever, but you guys are living proof that some people stay immature for their entire lifetimes.
Posted by K1CJS on October 12, 2008"
"With that said, keep in mind that it is the empty barrels that make the most noise here as elsewhere."
Right! Very well said by one of the emptiest barrels here. You are just another tired old geezer, in a tired old pastime. Just admit it. Misery likes company. You are certainly proof of that. Maybe because you think you are old, you utter words of wisdom. Not!!! You offer the same old critiques, with the same old tired perspectives, full of the same old musty rhetoric. How about writing a good technical article? Or, a good refreshing article about anything? Anything at all. How about it alter komischer Kauz? Anyone with any moderate amount of sense can see right through you. You've been a "ham" for so long right?
"Of course, they are mentally blind to how stupid and inadequate they appear through their posts."
Right *on* brother! You must be looking in the mirror right now, but with your glasses on. And, you know what they say about those glass houses.
"Some mistakenly think that by using strong language they are demonstrating their personal power."
Now that's about an asinine statement for sure! Power? Over what? Maybe the "power" thing is in your mind? Some kind of power you think you have? You are a little distorted there, old timer. But what you say, shows how you think. Not that it's worth knowing how you think though.
"good, sincere hams should continue to post their views and opinions and simply not directly address any of these immature egotists."
So old fools like you can critique and try to push your point of view down anyone's throat who happens to have their mouth open at the time? I don't think so.
"The gadflies with their juvenile tauntings are equally as ridiculous."
Oh poor thing. There you go again. If something is not expressed in a way that reeks of prudent stodginess, then you label it immature. And your many posts, many times indicate at least varying degrees of criticism. Some persistent. So what type of "gadfly" are you?
"By ignoring them, you deny them recognition and keep them under control."
There you go with that *power* and *control* thing again. Slipping off in delusions again are you? Don't stress over something that wasn't there to begin with.
"I never intended to drag this insult fest out people, and I apologise for it. However, to AE5EH, Plankeye and especially Radio123:
You can't stay young forever, but you guys are living proof that some people stay immature for their entire lifetimes."
And then there's the deer in the headlights again, who posts and posts, but never says anything much more than repeating either what someone else has already said, or something just *plain wrong*. Why do you do that? And you complain, and complain about how horrible eham is, but yet you keep coming back, and keep posting the same stupid fodder over and over, and then whine about people poking back at you for it, and calling bulls**t on you.
such as..................................
"RE: Build My Antenna! Reply
by K1CJS on October 12, 2008 Mail this to a friend!
Well, Halloween is coming up--maybe this is the trick. OK. So where's the treat??? :-)"
You are either bitching about how poor the content of the posts are, or posting some nonsense like that. What kind of contribution was that? You are definitely somewhat of a contradiction. But, I bet you can't see that.
All you two old buffoons seem to be good at is criticizing, and trying to tell people what you thing eham isn't, and what you think it should be. And then when folks throw it back at you go into your weak, pathetic defense of "anyone who doesn't agree with me, is wrong, society is wrong, and on, and on. You use a variety of corny, flowery words to say so, but that's essentially what you say, in numerous instances, and on numerous occasions.
Why don't you follow Dan's example. That was a cute, well written article he just did. When are you going to write one? How come you haven't chimed in to criticize that one? You wouldn't be deviating from form would you?
You perceive insults, and don't want them. Simple, don't leave yourself open for them. Put up, or shut. I'm not "laying" that one out for you. Can you figure it out?
Thanks for the endless laughs.
Again, if you don't like the site here, then don't come here. How hard can it be?
Start your own site. Then you'll have all the power and control you crave. You can be free to constantly compliment each other how smart and above reproach you are and moderate all those out who disagree with you, or tell you the truth you may not want to hear.
Jusqu'à la fois suivante mon deux vieux petit coup de fairys. en haut cela tu tu!
Posted by
AE5EH
on October 12, 2008
|
|
Proof
|
|
This is proof that the ability to post comments should be removed.
Posted by
N7KFD
on October 12, 2008
|
|
Where it all stands
|
To K1CJS and others who get disgusted with the trash posts on eHam.net:
It is really up to the administrators of the site to clean it up and keep it clean. If they are satisfied with a certain level of trash, aside from a survey, there is not much anyone can do about it.
With that said, keep in mind that it is the empty barrels that make the most noise here as elsewhere. Some mistakenly think that by using strong language they are demonstrating their personal power. Of course, they are mentally blind to how stupid and inadequate they appear through their posts. The gadflies with their juvenile tauntings are equally as ridiculous.
If or until the administrators clean up the trash posts from the site, good, sincere hams should continue to post their views and opinions and simply not directly address any of these immature egotists. Ignore them. This way stable, mature hams can continue to get some good from the material presented. By ignoring them, you deny them recognition and keep them under control.
Posted by
AI2IA
on October 12, 2008
|
|
Last words.....
|
I never intended to drag this insult fest out people, and I apologise for it. However, to AE5EH, Plankeye and especially Radio123:
You can't stay young forever, but you guys are living proof that some people stay immature for their entire lifetimes.
Posted by
K1CJS
on October 12, 2008
|
|
Do more Hamming
|
|
This is exactly why i let my Eham sub run out last time. Just a bunch of immature 12 year old's with a ham license who forgot how to use it. Get away from the keyboard, it's unhealthy to sit there that long.
Posted by
W9SN
on October 12, 2008
|
|
RESPECT
|
PLANKEYE SPEAKS THESE WORDS:
K1CJS:
You are starting to attract ALOT of negative attention to yourself Sir.
Want some more?
Keep speaking!!
PLANKEYE
Posted by
PLANKEYE
on October 11, 2008
|
|
Right!
|
"K1CJS Trolling
K1CJS said "Gee, I wasn't aware that 7 or 8 posts out of over 120 posts was considered 'taking over' a thread, especially when the posts were discussion and answers to others."
Chris, how many others have this many posts in this thread ?...I would say your the biggest troll here...I think you understand exactly what I'm talking about, even though you've got too much of an ego to admit it...how about all the trolling you do in the CW threads ???...
Posted by RADIO123US on October 11, 2008
"Whoops......sorry, we didn't plan for blind chickens. Wrong keys. No reward for you.
What is do you have?"
After looking at your profile and seeing your posts, the only question I have is---How can you plan for you? You've obviously got an attitude problem, and a concurrent problem in expressing yourself. Goodbye.
Posted by K1CJS on October 11, 2008"
Well Chrissy Princess,
You passed the first part. You picked out the typo.
But you miserably failed the second part. Didn't think you were that dense. You are one of those stereotypical doofuses, the type that tries to sound like an intelligent person by their choice of words. But from reading almost anything you post on any site, one thing is obvious.
You don't have a clue.
About a lot of things. Antennas (that's antennae for W8JI), antenna tuners, CW (I bet you can't even send or understand CW), and a host of other things. You are like one of those pathetic, mildly retarded kids in the class discussion that craves attention, and is always throwing their hand up in the air to contribute either disinformation, or repeating what someone else has already said. You pick at the chaff while the grain is blown away by the wind. You are boring, and stupid. No wonder you're divorced. Have you considered needle point, crocheting, or maybe collecting butterflies? Perhaps that's more your speed. Not as technical. You can hang out with the effeminate types. That might suit you better.
"How about it, E-ham...... Reply
by K1CJS on February 2, 2008 Mail this to a friend!
The other major website for amateur radio, QRZ, (some would say the premier website now) has just gone to a new software setup and have improved their board many times what it used to be. They've also tightened up their moderation without going overboard--and they don't allow anonymous people to post their drivel.
Will E-ham follow suit? Or will it just continue its steady decline--mediocre articles and unmoderated, contentious horse droppings in the forums? The hams who would have meant a better base of users have long since left for greener pastures. The wiseguys who are left and the ones that sign on here know next to nothing, and that fact shows--painfully.
The time to turn the downslide around has past, but late is better than nothing. Is E-ham going to try to improve, or will it just decend into oblivion??
Yeah right Chrissy Princess. Or how about this one...............
From the Chrissy Princess eham profile:
When I'm not on the radio, you can normally find me...
The way this site has 'declined' in the last few years is one reason I won't come here much anymore. The main reason, however, is the newer members who think they know everything--especially the kids who just got their license and argue about technical and other details with long time hams. Society has gone way downhill and is way too permissive--especially of the younger generation. This site is just one example of the lack of respect which is prevalent today. I'm not speaking of just one or two people either, there are many who exhibit the same know it all attitude--including older people here. When people finally understand they don't know everything to do with a subject (I acknowledge that I don't) this site will be worth going to again. Sadly, I don't see that happening."
It's not you site princess. When are you going to start your own?
Chrissy Princess says:
"The way this site has 'declined' in the last few years is one reason I won't come here much anymore."
Really? But you keep coming back and spending so much time here.
And................
Chrissy Princess says:
"The main reason, however, is the newer members who think they know everything--especially the kids who just got their license and argue about technical and other details with long time hams."
Ha, ha...that's a hoot huh? Still waiting for you to lay some technical gems on us Princess.
"How to Use Your Antenna Tuner Reply
by K1CJS on October 8, 2008 Mail this to a friend!
What a group of varying opinions! Not to mention the usual 'I'm right--you're wrong' arguments. I have to agree, a properly designed antenna should need no antenna tuner--if it is mounted properly and with nothing around it that will affect it. In today's world, that seldom happens. An antenna tuner is necessary in the shack for that reason--even the final stages in modern rigs can forgive only so much."
Uh huh..............
"RE: How to Use Your Antenna Tuner Reply
by N2EY on October 8, 2008 Mail this to a friend!
K1CJS writes: "a properly designed antenna should need no antenna tuner--if it is mounted properly and with nothing around it that will affect it."
Sorry, that's just not true. Not in all cases, anyway.
Consider the classic 80/75 meter center-fed wire dipole, mounted up high and in the clear. Fed with good 50 ohm coax and cut to resonance in the middle of the band, it will typically have less than 2:1 SWR over maybe 200 kHz. But the band is 500 kHz wide!"
How long you been a "ham" Princess? That's basic stuff there. If you don't know something, just say so. You can always learn what you need to know. At least make an attempt. But don't pretend you do. You should thank Jim for setting you straight on that. He's one of the nicer guys here, that really does know something.
Oh well.............that's enough for a while.
Princess, why don't you consider subscribing? It's the least you can do for spending so much time here.
Posted by
AE5EH
on October 11, 2008
|
|
K1CJS Trolling
|
K1CJS said "Gee, I wasn't aware that 7 or 8 posts out of over 120 posts was considered 'taking over' a thread, especially when the posts were discussion and answers to others."
Chris, how many others have this many posts in this thread ?...I would say your the biggest troll here...I think you understand exactly what I'm talking about, even though you've got too much of an ego to admit it...how about all the trolling you do in the CW threads ???...
Posted by
RADIO123US
on October 11, 2008
|
|
|
"Whoops......sorry, we didn't plan for blind chickens. Wrong keys. No reward for you.
What is do you have?"
After looking at your profile and seeing your posts, the only question I have is---How can you plan for you? You've obviously got an attitude problem, and a concurrent problem in expressing yourself. Goodbye.
Posted by
K1CJS
on October 11, 2008
|
|
Sorry, none for you.
|
"Seems like the thread has taken the subject matter and made it actuality.....yet again! ;-)
Posted by K1CJS on October 10, 2008"
Whoops......sorry, we didn't plan for blind chickens. Wrong keys. No reward for you.
What is do you have?
Posted by
AE5EH
on October 10, 2008
|
|
Wow!
|
|
Seems like the thread has taken the subject matter and made it actuality.....yet again! ;-)
Posted by
K1CJS
on October 10, 2008
|
|
And again................
|
"Gee, I wasn't aware that 7 or 8 posts out of over 120 posts was considered 'taking over' a thread, especially when the posts were discussion and answers to others.
You, Radio123, on the other hand have gone off topic/subject to do what you usually do, try to cause trouble. Don't let me keep you from your fun--just don't expect me to play your game.
Posted by K1CJS on October 10, 2008
Some quotation marks seem to have managed to move around in there. AI2IA said the thing bit about achievers.
eHam needs quote markup ;-)
Posted by N3OX on October 9, 2008"
Perhaps if we arrange the corn kernel holograms in the correct sequence on each key of the toy piano, we can get the chicken to peck out the desired melody. If we could manage just one melody that more than one person recognizes as the same one, that would be an accomplishment. Of course, some one would want to know what the accomplishment was/is. Perhaps some benevolent, cognitive therapy is in order.
If the shoe fits, consider wearing it. Especially if its the style you prefer. If its the wrong size and its uncomfortable, simply choose a size that fits, and is comfortable.
You can do it.
Its your world.
Its your life.
Check in, or check out.
Be happy, or not.
As no one can make you think anything, neither can you make anyone think anything.
Its never too late to join the community of life.
You can do it.
The clock of life is ticking.
Make a choice.
You can do it.
Posted by
AE5EH
on October 10, 2008
|
|
|
Gee, I wasn't aware that 7 or 8 posts out of over 120 posts was considered 'taking over' a thread, especially when the posts were discussion and answers to others.
You, Radio123, on the other hand have gone off topic/subject to do what you usually do, try to cause trouble. Don't let me keep you from your fun--just don't expect me to play your game.
Posted by
K1CJS
on October 10, 2008
|
|
|
Some quotation marks seem to have managed to move around in there. AI2IA said the thing bit about achievers.
eHam needs quote markup ;-)
Posted by
N3OX
on October 9, 2008
|
|
Wrong again
|
Posted by N3OX on October 7, 2008"
"Let the achievers post. Exclude the non-achievers until the become part of the amateur community.
The over-the-topness of this statement notwithstanding, if the eHam webmasters came in and made you callsign-verification Czar today, how would you prevent people from signing up using a bootlegged callsign that they found on QRZ.com?"
Human nature is on display here as it is to a reasonable degree in many other public forums. Is that too obvious? All the banter and comments in the world aren't going to change peoples attitudes. That collective energy has it's own reality. If this site became more moderated, or just flat shut down this instant, it wouldn't change the way people think much, if any at all. Everyone has a choice. I doubt you can make anyone think anything. Deal with reality. If you don't like the way this site is run, don't be part of it. Start your own. There's always comments. People bitch about things when they don't suit their interests. Is that too obvious? "Ham" community? What kind of nonsense is that? Is that anything like the "Stamp Collecting" community, or maybe the "Grandma quilt making" community? Sounds like maybe you should start your own "ham" radio cult/religion/community. Bet you don't like the ARRL, current FCC part 97 rules either. Want some respect from your supposed parishioners that live in your delusions? Want to really impress them? Go change it all. Really, get a life. It's only a hobby!
And by the way genius, my call sign is real. Go look it up on the only legal database that counts, FCC ULS. That little fairy W0BKR apparently was not smart enough to look it up. Of course he had to write in to "The Doctor" in QST to ask what the difference between dbd and dbi is, so if he couldn't find that on his own, I guess he couldn't be expected to look up a callsign in ULS before he proclaimed to the QRZ congregation that it was a "bootleg" call. A shining and prodigious mental specimen and self proclaimed ARRL life member & 20WPM Extra. A mental giant and pride of the League.
Terry-AE5EH
Posted by
AE5EH
on October 9, 2008
|
|
CANCEL EHAM ALL TOGETHER.............
|
This EHAM Web site should be cancelled completely instead of being used for a Cespool.
The US government already operates this way, Ham Operators don't need this bullshit.
73
Posted by
KPAX2
on October 9, 2008
|
|
RAY IS MELTING
|
THIS IS PLANKEYE:
Ray your melting down like a candle on Halloween!!
BOO!!
You still owe me breakfast, you son-of-a-gun!!
Your buyin though!!
PLANKEYE
Posted by
PLANKEYE
on October 8, 2008
|
|
|
|
Isn't it ironic that the 2 biggest trolls on this site (K1CJS and AI2IA) post using their callsigns, and then complain about folks that that are anonymous causing the problems.....did anyone notice that they are the ones that have taken over this thread ?
Posted by
RADIO123US
on October 8, 2008
|
|
Remove Comments to Articles
|
There are just too many folks on E.Ham who need to be devoting more time to taking their stool softener(s) than making comments to E.Ham articles...and they all seem to have valid callsigns. For the sake of those of us who want E.Ham to be a positive experience, please do not provide these softener deficient souls with an outlet to express their personal discomfort. It only serves to distract them from the serious personal business they really need to be taking care of.
Posted by
KI4LYJ
on October 8, 2008
|
|
Remove Comments to Articles
|
There are just too many folks on E.Ham who need to be devoting more time to taking their stool softener(s) than making comments to E.Ham articles...and they all seem to have valid callsigns. For the sake of those of us who want E.Ham to be a positive experience, please do not provide these softener deficient souls with an outlet to express their personal discomfort. It only serves to distract them from the serious personal business they really need to be taking care of.
Posted by
KI4LYJ
on October 8, 2008
|
|
Probably A Dumb Thought
|
Would making eHam a subscription based site make any difference? Say, $25.00 a year? Would that limit the random posts from folks just driving by?
I know I get at least that much back in information and access to the buy/sell listings alone. In reality I probly get 10 times that much.
Flame away - it is only a thought. There is nothing wrong with eHam as a site - it is the occasional comments that hack folks off and cause hate and discontent.
And, to honest, I have said things here that I should not have - but they were done in the heat of the moment. Sorry for that.
I guess my position is this; The site is only as good as what we make it. For where I have faltered, please accept my apologies.
Take care, all
C r a i g
Posted by
N4CQR
on October 8, 2008
|
|
Comments...
|
The attacks, arguments, hollow sarcasm, all get old pretty quick..over what? A hobby?
Sheeesh.
Posted by
K5TEN
on October 8, 2008
|
|
|
AI2IA says: "Other sites have registered uses who provide valid email addresses to the administrators"
A valid email address is a meaningless object by itself.
I have maybe eight of them, four or so I actually use for various purposes, the other ones forward to the ones I use in case I've forgotten to give someone a new one. If I wanted to, I could have thirty more email addresses in an hour. The sites that require a valid email address to sign up will still have trolls unless they have an efficient and sufficiently large pool of moderators.
"Obvious nonsense, or posts with contents in very poor taste can be either removed or filtered."
That could happen independent of ham-callsign-usernames, if there were sufficient manpower to do the job. Implementing ham-callsign-usernames with verification is, in my opinion, a distraction from more useful progress toward moderation.
I also think philosophical escalation of the "discussion" toward topics of privilege, political correctness, and liberal guilt is a distraction from useful progress toward site moderation, but hey, who cares, we've both got licenses so we can fill up the comments with whatever we want ;-)
Posted by
N3OX
on October 7, 2008
|
|
OK, how?
|
"Let the achievers post. Exclude the non-achievers until the become part of the amateur community."
The over-the-topness of this statement notwithstanding, if the eHam webmasters came in and made you callsign-verification Czar today, how would you prevent people from signing up using a bootlegged callsign that they found on QRZ.com?
Posted by
N3OX
on October 7, 2008
|
|
Meh.......
|
"Shoddy ham radio advice is barely similar to shoddy plumbing advice anyway. For one, shoddy ham radio advice affects a tiny fraction of the world population, PERIOD.
And anyway, as I've been saying, a lot of the bad advice on this site comes from long-licensed hams, and I've seen the "anonymous" posters give good advice"
But Dan.............were talking about "AMATEUR" radio. Don't expect some thing that's not there. You'll be much less disappointed. If you've had any real, substantial electronics experience, especially commercial communications electronics experience before you got into "ham" radio, it should be obvious that this site is the place for technical DISinformation. This is where you come for a few cheap laughs, and peanut gallery entertainment. Take the equipment reviews for example. From the cheapest to the most expensive radio, accessory, whatever, you'll have one user that thinks its the greatest, one that thinks it sucks.....two sometimes polar opposites of the exact same article. What has the most inconsistent dynamics at any given time, the equipment, or the one grading it? Think about it. Its really a user review, they just don't realize it. What's smarter, the radio, or the person using it? How about some of the noteworthy respectable "Amateur" radio operators like K3LR Tim, K3BU Yuri, N1UL Dr Ulrich L. Rhode to name a few? Do you see them posting here much, if at all? Of course not. Why would they want to waste their time? They would probably be challenged by the self proclaimed, know it all RF Jesus, legend in his own mind scumbag with the crappy, looks like a 3 year old built it website, W8JI. He's one of the more technical losers that would rather argue with you about whether its "antennas" or "antennae". Very stimulating for the mind indeed. But really, it's only a hobby. Anyone with a moderate amount of sense and motivation can find out most anything they need to know outside of this website. It's all of no consequence.
Posted by
AE5EH
on October 7, 2008
|
|
Sacred Cows
|
Should anonymous posters be sacred cows on eHam.net? Does it prove how democratic and liberal the site must be to have gadflies among the sincere posters? Does political correctness demand that participants and readers must tolerate stupid and useless posts to make up for their guilt in having an exclusive license?
Isn't the very hallmark of a licensed person the ability to discriminate between what is worthwhile and what is worthless?
A license is a privilege, and those who have them are the privileged. Is that socially unacceptable to some of you?
Why is it wrong to want to see consistent quality in the threads? Is there a valid reason why we should feel guilty about having a license? Don't we have a right to take pride in having and using our licenses?
Let the achievers post. Exclude the non-achievers until the become part of the amateur community. Oh! Bad! Bad! Bad! Look what bad things I have posted here!
Posted by
AI2IA
on October 7, 2008
|
|
There is a way.
|
"Why not try some attempts at improvement? "
As I see it, the way to successfully moderate an active site is not to put the control in the hands of the people who do the registrations.
It's to put the control in the hands of the users, on a *post by post* basis, like www.slashdot.org and many other sites do.
" Doing anything is better than doing nothing."
I disagree. Any action regarding registration and moderation for this site is going to take some effort. Not every action will show benefit commensurate with the effort required.
There are a lot of threads on this site that get derailed by various individuals and dumb squabbles, but from my perspective, it's only obvious-troll-bait editorial opinion threads where the "anonymous" crew is particularly nasty, and the response of the licensed hams to the anonymous commenters is overzealous. The whole article and comments thread might as well be tossed in the garbage at that point.
- - - - - - -
You might think that by taking out the "easily identifiable" element of anonymous posters, you'll make a vast improvement, but I just don't think that's realistic. It's too hard to do and doesn't really hit the core of the problem.
eHam editors can decide what they're going to do with the results of this survey, but I just see a lot of wasted effort coming of trying to restrict posting to "real ham callsigns."
Posted by
N3OX
on October 7, 2008
|
|
Quality can improve
|
|
Look, all kidding aside, some things can be done to improve the quality of the web site. Other sites have registered uses who provide valid email addresses to the administrators. Obvious nonsense, or posts with contents in very poor taste can be either removed or filtered. A little more attention to the site by the administrators would go a long way in improving the image and reputation. Why not try some attempts at improvement? If they don't work, you can always go back. Doing anything is better than doing nothing.
Posted by
AI2IA
on October 7, 2008
|
|
Posting
|
|
From what I have read here, I wonder why the question was ever asked. I mean, basically your answer is it can't be done.
Posted by
N4VNV
on October 7, 2008
|
|
Authentication, seriously?
|
Seriously, though... I'd like to hear from some of the 62% on this point:
How are we going to authenticate people who sign up with callsigns to make sure they're not bootlegging?
Dan
Posted by
N3OX
on October 7, 2008
|
|
Anonymous?
|
"By the way, have you, yourself, ever entertained the thought of posting anonymously at eHam.net?"
In fact, I have entertained that thought. Maybe I already do post anonymously. Try to figure out which one is me ;-) Who has my style? Who comes from the same block of IP addresses?
But no, I don't do it right now. I just think maybe I should. And not to cause particular trouble, just to do what I do otherwise, but without identifying information. This is the internet, not the radio. There's no legal obligation for a particular string of characters to identify us. Using one's real callsign doesn't seem to stop some folks from being just as abusive and strange as any "anonymous troll" is capable of being.
If eHam wants to go with the majority on this one, that's fine with me, but not because I think callsign-ful posters are inherently any better than callsign-less ones.
73,
Dan
Posted by
N3OX
on October 7, 2008
|
|
Hidden experts
|
"And anyway, as I've been saying, a lot of the bad advice on this site comes from long-licensed hams, and I've seen the "anonymous" posters give good advice." -N3OX
N3OX must have a lot of spare fuses at home.
You should stop smoking those little black cigars that look like twisted ropes. They have a bad effect on you. By the way, have you, yourself, ever entertained the thought of posting anonymously at eHam.net? Perhaps you post as N3OX and post anonymously also?
Posted by
AI2IA
on October 6, 2008
|
|
Plumbing?
|
"Hey there insecure folks, is your licensed plumber a snob for having a license "
My plumber does an important job and quality workmanship is extremely important; water damage can destroy a home.
eHam comments do not do an important job and if I get sick of them, I can just stop reading the site for a while.
Shoddy ham radio advice is barely similar to shoddy plumbing advice anyway. For one, shoddy ham radio advice affects a tiny fraction of the world population, PERIOD.
And anyway, as I've been saying, a lot of the bad advice on this site comes from long-licensed hams, and I've seen the "anonymous" posters give good advice.
I do feel pretty strongly that our hobby would be helped by quality advice ... but it *only* helps our hobby, and I don't see limiting eHam comments to licensed users raising the quality of the advice anyway.
Posted by
N3OX
on October 6, 2008
|
|
Elitist nonsense
|
Insecure individuals are always ready to cry about snobism and "elitism."
Hey there insecure folks, is your licensed plumber a snob for having a license as opposed to the do-it-yourself types who want to post on the plumbing web site?
You pitiful dummies have to do better.
Posted by
AI2IA
on October 5, 2008
|
|
sheesh !
|
Anyone interested in the ham radio hobby is allowed to post on eham call or no call.
I see that there is a great number of elitest snobs out there.
Lighten up.
Posted by
W8JJI
on October 5, 2008
|
|
BOO!!
|
BOO!!
JUST BE NICE!!
Happy Halloween!!
PLANKEYE
Posted by
PLANKEYE
on October 5, 2008
|
|
posting regs.
|
|
no valid call sign, no post, that simple....
Posted by
PUERCO001
on October 5, 2008
|
|
So.....
|
Yep. The survey will probably stay up the full month--or it may be replaced sooner. Who knows? Who cares?
It seems to me that this type of survey is very useful--if the e-ham staff would have any reason to use it--and that is very doubtful. The only other reason something like this is up is to increase the site hit counter, just like just about everything else on this site is on it to do.
Too bad.
Posted by
K1CJS
on October 4, 2008
|
|
Morse cose
|
|
Get your knees up.
Posted by
K5RIX
on October 2, 2008
|
|
|
"It's time to shoot this lame horse and put it out of its misery. On to the next survey! '
As long as the survey part is still collecting votes, even slowly, it should remain.
I don't agree with the majority, but I think it's correct to give the community a vote, and leaving this survey up longer, I think, is not a bad idea.
I think it's going to stay up for about a month from the post date anyway ;-)
Posted by
N3OX
on October 2, 2008
|
|
Put it away now.
|
|
It's time to shoot this lame horse and put it out of its misery. On to the next survey!
Posted by
AI2IA
on October 2, 2008
|
|
Call Sign Post
|
Posting over a call sign allows necessary editorial control.
Direct those without a call sign to post via an email message to the editor (survey manager).
73
NB0L
Butch
Posted by
NB0L
on September 30, 2008
|
|
|
"If one had the time and the means to locate the people who get the e-mail addresses (yes, it can be done--and somewhat easily) the problem is near solution."
If you can connect my freshly-signed-up-for Gmail address to my Comcast IP block at time I signed up for it, and then hack Comcast to discover my personal account details from my dynamic IP address at that time, I bet you can also just go right in to eHam's servers and eliminate whatever accounts are annoying you at the time.
You'd also probably have better things to do, like making hundreds of thousands of dollars on identity fraud ;-)
Posted by
N3OX
on September 30, 2008
|
|
E-Ham essential???
|
One remark seemed to say that ham radio would disappear if it weren't for the information on the internet and ham radio sites on it such as e-Ham.
You've got to be kidding--right?
Posted by
K1CJS
on September 30, 2008
|
|
|
OK Dan, point taken--but I am just suggesting ways to limit troublemakers.
Also, you said "Verifiable email address means nothing except possibly for hams who already have high internet profiles. I could have k1cjs@k1cjs.net in hand in about twelve hours. I could have k1cjs.Chris@gmail.com in twelve seconds. Do you really want to make it so an eHam login is harder to get than a LoTW certificate?"
If you did so, even though it may look like it was me doing the posting, traceback of the internet activity used to get the address would ultimately point straight to you. And BTW, I've already had my callsign hyjacked--and I've gotten it removed from the site where it was used.
If one had the time and the means to locate the people who get the e-mail addresses (yes, it can be done--and somewhat easily) the problem is near solution. However, that option is not readily available to users of e-ham if we cannot easily get the e-mail addresses. Would e-ham release that information? They have already said no in terms of their not identifying these bozos.
If everyone would be required to have a valid e-mail address on their profile for all to see--making identifying AND FINDING them much easier, I'm willing to bet a lot of the antagonistic postings would disappear.
Posted by
K1CJS
on September 30, 2008
|
|
|
If there weren't any posts after an article, I wouldn't have something to read while I'm watching something booaaaring on TV.
Besides, without the silly posts, how would I feel superior to my fellow hams? :-)
73
Posted by
W7ETA
on September 29, 2008
|
|
RELAX GUYS
|
Can anyone here take a step back and Relax.
Nobody is perfect.
Ya know this hobby can be fun and you can actually Laugh sometimes.
It's alot better than wringing out a dry rag and griting your teeth in a rocking chair.
I think Calls should be required on this Site to Post.
PERIOD!!
Have fun and don't take it to serious!!
PLANKEYE
Posted by
PLANKEYE
on September 29, 2008
|
|
|
"Throw the bums out. Don't worry about non-hams and recruitment. New folks find trolls just as repulsive as we do. "
My contention is that the some of the most intentionally disruptive people on this site use their own callsigns.
Maybe eliminating "anonymous" logins would take out some people who only signed up to harass people, but here's how I see that:
1) It would only fix about half of the problem. The callsign-ful trolls would still be here.
2) It would axe the helpful callsign-free folks who hang around here. Maybe there aren't many, but don't they count for anything?
Dan
Posted by
N3OX
on September 29, 2008
|
|
"Terrific fun?"
|
"It can all be terrific fun!"
Yes, I suppose it can be fun filled with terror, at least in the minds of the anonymous posters. This is why they post anonymously - they say discourteous things, sarcastic nonsense, or provocatons and they are terrorfied of exposing their true identity.
All real hams are looking for sensible information, perhaps along with occasional light humor, but this site should not be the degraded clown place that it is. It is not taking themselves or the subject matter "too seriously" to want to read something interesting and useful, something that you can take away with you and use in your ham activity.
Sloppy threads are poor containers for useful, worthwhile, and practical ideas for hams who tinker and operate the best way they can muster. Throw the bums out. Don't worry about non-hams and recruitment. New folks find trolls just as repulsive as we do.
Posted by
AI2IA
on September 29, 2008
|
|
It can all be terrific fun
|
I remember, as a youngster, how all the little "groups" of kids segregated certain individuals off to other groups and such.
I remember being the last kid picked on the kickball team during recess because, though I could really kick the ball like any other kid, I just couldn't run so fast.
"Well, we don't want John in our group because he has red hair."
"Well, we don't want Sally in our fun because she has braces."
"Well, we don't want Tim in our club because he is..."
You get the picture...
Do I need to elaborate any further?
A good majority of this thread reads like a bunch of nasty little kids on the playground of life. It would appear, as some of you have grown older, you have forgotten an important lesson. The very "kids" you wish to intentionally leave out may be the kids that have something to contribute to the fun. The non hams that may even make tongue in cheek or even flat out stupid remarks from time to time may turn out to be "super hams" some time later. They may turn out to be in your neck of the woods and still be "thin" enough to climb the tower that you have become entirely too FAT or OLD to take on in a safe manner. I'm getting there (old & fat) so, I can say that with conviction and be validated in making such a remark. That kid you punched in the nose in 5th grade turned out to be your best friend in 9th grade.
I like the idea of opening a section solely dedicated to the "non-ham". That would be a very good option.
I AGREE with what a few trolls and non-trolls have said. Which is...
"Some of you, indeed, take yourselves ENTIRELY too seriously."
Posted by
N8NSN
on September 29, 2008
|
|
Sigh
|
http://www.eham.net/forums/SiteTalk/1570
I suppose I deserved what I got there because there's a callsign associated with the thread originator.
Posted by
N3OX
on September 28, 2008
|
|
|
By the way, I don't deny that there's a profound signal-to-noise problem in the front page articles' comments.
I just think limiting allowed usernames to particular four to seven character strings that happen to also be associated with some person's government issued ham license won't help the problem.
Posted by
N3OX
on September 28, 2008
|
|
|
"A question, Dan. By your own admission, you skip over the posts of the no-call 'trolls', so how do you know if they're posting something useful or not?"
Chris, the only way you've caught me in a trap of logic here is by the presupposition that someone with no call is a troll.
There are four subdivisions you can create from troll/non-troll and call/no-call. I was talking about one of the four. The other three also exist on eHam. I named one who, in my opinion, was of the no-call non-trolls.
"put your real name on your profile--that and A VERIFIED E-MAIL ADDRESS"
There is at least one person that has commented at great length on eHam who I'm pretty sure *got an amateur license* to lend some "weight" to his ham trolling. He's occasionally got good points, but mostly he's fond of telling hams not to take themselves so seriously, and he does it more or less in book form and gets people really riled up.
I know his real name and postal address. He gave it to the FCC in return for his license.
Look, this is the internet. The internet has trolls. It's a *very popular hobby.* It's fun for some folks and it's easy to do, and it's actually sort of fun to watch the ones who trip up
I think trying to lock down the site to only legitimate verified hams is a bad idea and also a waste of resources. The people who want to troll eHam will just bootleg calls.
Verifiable email address means nothing except possibly for hams who already have high internet profiles. I could have k1cjs@k1cjs.net in hand in about twelve hours. I could have k1cjs.Chris@gmail.com in twelve seconds. Do you really want to make it so an eHam login is harder to get than a LoTW certificate?
73,
Dan
Posted by
N3OX
on September 28, 2008
|
|
Will anything change?
|
>Survey Says
I think the numbers in the survey say it all.
Now...Will EHam change it??
KT4WO>
::I guess this will be interesting to see.
If it were up to me, I'd ban "feedback" to articles from the non-validated. However I'd make a section of the website dedicated specifically to non-hams who are interested parties, with the goal of getting them more interested and ultimately licensed. I have no problem with SWLs, CBers, FRS users or other people interested in radio communications who might be prospective hams.
If not for them, ham radio will die off in one more human generation. But having them comment on articles makes little sense. They should be asking questions and getting intelligent answers, in a separate and special section....perhaps besides "Elmers."
More like an "interested non-hams' questions" section.
Hams who won't identify themselves are called "jammers" on the air. That's all they are here, also.
Posted by
WB2WIK
on September 28, 2008
|
|
Order or Chaos
|
Responsibility and accountability
or....
Anonymous posts and disruption of reasoned discussion.
If it is to be worth anything, people have to put some flesh into the game! They have to openly own what they write, and be accountable for it.
As for higher standards driving new people away, well, anything that can be easily obtained is worth very little. Things of value such as ham radio are worth the struggle. Amateur radio is not for wimps.
Posted by
AI2IA
on September 28, 2008
|
|
EYE SCANS
|
How about some kind of Eye Scan before you post?
The survey just mentioned Calls I thought?
You guys came up with all kinds of goodies to make each other nice.
LETS MAKE A LIST!!
Ray, get a pen.
PLANKEYE
Posted by
PLANKEYE
on September 28, 2008
|
|
|
Continuing my previous post:
If those two things were open for all to see, I think you would find 90% of the problem posts would disappear.
Posted by
K1CJS
on September 28, 2008
|
|
Wait a minute......
|
A question, Dan. By your own admission, you skip over the posts of the no-call 'trolls', so how do you know if they're posting something useful or not? I think you've got the percentage on the wrong item--90% of the troublemakers are either no-call trolls or people hyjacking a callsign. Also, some people use the callsign they signed onto this site with even though they've had a new one issued or had it otherwise changed.
The screenname really doesn't make a difference--its the name and ID on the profile that does, and its there that most of us go to see what person makes the statements. That is, since only a handful sign their posts.
You want to use a handle instead of a callsign? Fine--but put your real name on your profile--that and A VERIFIED E-MAIL ADDRESS. That IS what the profile spot is there for, and what should be on it.
Posted by
K1CJS
on September 28, 2008
|
|
By the way...
|
|
I'd rather see article comments stripped entirely than have eHam restrict the allowed posters.
Posted by
N3OX
on September 28, 2008
|
|
It's the internet, folks
|
Sixty four percent in favor of ham-call only?
Congratulations ladies and gents, on the exclusion of the new people who don't yet have licenses, or who just like to get radio advice (SWL's? other electronics hobbyists), or people who are electronics experts but not hams.
It's goofy, impractical, and isolating to demand verified-callsign-only usernames.
90% of the comments I really have a problem with on this site come from people using their real calls.
It's easy to skip over the no-call trolls when they pop up. That ranty guy with no call? Ignore him. More importantly, a few of the no-call crew actually post useful, relevant comments and questions a fair bit of the time (Tanakasan comes to mind).
There are at least a couple of people on the site using unverifiable calls, because they're unassigned. One of them tends toward asking reasonable questions, and from what I understand, was the former holder of that call, but doesn't hold it anymore (no one does, it's long and unwieldy).
This is the internet, folks. Anyone can pretend to be anyone.
There's an availability problem here. If you do a long hard look at the archives you'll probably find that off base ranting and trouble is caused about as much by callsigned individuals as it is "anonymous" posters, and you'll find that some of the no-call crew are really useful contributors to the site.
73,
Dan
Posted by
N3OX
on September 28, 2008
|
|
Who gives a rip?
|
Really.... Who cares? I have noticed that e-ham did indeed take the opportunity to remove my previous rant.
Thank you e-ham... that is PRECISELY what "action" I wanted to see.
Now, if you could "follow suit" and take that kind of action EVERY time some "crap" gets slung around... Then you will fall well into the "constraints" of publishing PC that it would seem the "majority" wishes you to be in.
This has been a test of the PC internet forum testing brigade. Well done E-Ham... Well done. Here is your treat. :-*
Posted by
N8NSN
on September 28, 2008
|
|
|
If you want a constructive comment to help clean up this mess, here it is:
If anybody wants to post--ham callsign or not--require that the e-mail address that has been verified by the e-ham staff be posted on the person's profile FOR ALL TO SEE. Most of these clowns don't even have a NAME on their profile--or have the same name as their screenname.
If they knew they could be followed and IDed by their e-mail, they would be more careful of what they posted. I'm sure there is a way to put in a monthly or a random check on the e-mail address to verify it is a legitimate one.
Posted by
K1CJS
on September 28, 2008
|
|
|
>>I just do not see what all you folks are getting so upset about, since you are not in sight of each other as you make your responses, you are in ( often ) opposite ends of the USA and not shoulder-to-shoulder to each other.
Remember this is just the internet.<<
This attitude exactly defines the problem. Too many people don't care because they figure they won't be held accountable. If they would act like they would be, all the baloney on sites like this one would be almost totally eliminated.
Its a heck of a thing when we figure we can say or do anything because nothing will happen to us. If identification, moderation and sanctioning would come into play, this site would be cleaned up quickly. It HAS happened on QRZ--and just recently. Let it happen here too!
Posted by
K1CJS
on September 28, 2008
|
|
LUNATIC
|
Is it possible to ban somebody for being a lunatic?
WB2WIK
____________________________________
If you look at the Declaration of Independence, why some of them used "handles" and a lot more wanted to sign it, but they liked being anonymous. - This is what they teach in public schools.
Come on! What sacred publishng "right" is there in being "anonymous"? You've got to be kidding or brainless! - Ray Mullins, AI2IA
Posted by AI2IA on September 27, 2008
___________________________________________
THIS IS PLANKEYE:
If the Lunatic Ban is enforced, I would probably be the first one in the box.
The first one, not the ONLY one!!
PLANKEYE
Posted by
PLANKEYE
on September 28, 2008
|
|
|
Ban folks who post without calls. PERIOD!!
That is what I'm saying.
How this website validates them, is up to the website.
I'm saying BAN those that do not post with a CALLSIGN PERIOD!!
Posted by PLANKEYE on September 25, 2008
******************************
I think "PLANKEYE" (anonymous user/poster) hit it on the head.
Jim - W8LGZ
Sorry, Lon. I couldn't help myself. 73!
Posted by
W8LGZ
on September 28, 2008
|
|
|
Ban folks who post without calls. PERIOD!!
That is what I'm saying.
How this website validates them, is up to the website.
I'm saying BAN those that do not post with a CALLSIGN PERIOD!!
Posted by PLANKEYE on September 25, 2008
******************************
I think "PLANKEYE" (anonymous user/poster) hit it on the head.
Jim - W8LGZ
Sorry, Lon. I couldn't help myself. 73!
Posted by
W8LGZ
on September 28, 2008
|
|
I AGREE WITH RAY
|
If you were to lay side-by-side the posts of actual hams who post with their call signs and the posts of anonymous posters using "handles," what will you see? You will see the majority of ham posted comments are relevant, while the majority, not all but most, handle posted comments are sub-standard or worse. How would the Journal of the American Medical Association look if the editor allowed articles submitted by anyone using a "handle"? It would quickly become just like eHam.net. Need more be said?
Posted by AI2IA on September 26, 2008
_________________________________________
THIS IS PLANKEYE:
I agree with Ray, Ban all from posting without a Call Period.
If you were to lay side-by-side the Posts of actual Hams, well you can read what Ray said.
Lay em down Side-by-Side Ray.
That's what I'm talkin about!!
Ban all who post without Calls PERIOD!!
The Jouranl, or whatever, would do what now?
You lost me on that, but that's OK.
Anyway, kick it Ray!!
Shut em Down!!
Side-by-Side!!
Side-by-Side!!
LOVED IT RAY!!
PLANKEYE
Posted by
PLANKEYE
on September 27, 2008
|
|
And the survey says
|
let people speak there minds if you don't like the comment skip it,posting a comment about an article is a good thing. And if some of the articles are out trolling then ignore them if ignored enough times then the troller will go away...
Ed VA6EF
Posted by
VA6EF
on September 27, 2008
|
|
Let them eat cake
|
Let everyone post, with or without calls. Some of the comments I have read including the ones here have actually made me laugh and I can always use a good laugh.
Time to stop being PC and say what you mean, and from reading the comments some have.
Kurt
K8YZK (not afraid to post my call)
Posted by
K8YZK
on September 27, 2008
|
|
|
I voted for "verified ham calls only" as it will be a step in the right direction.
But I really wish this was a moderated message board.
Posted by
WR8Y
on September 27, 2008
|
|
There will be no change
|
eHam won't change a thing. It is the ham-related internet
version of the Jerry Springer show.
As for KC8BYF, he sounds like a 5th grader or someone who
is not taking his meds - or both.
Posted by
W3LK
on September 27, 2008
|
|
My 2 Cents
|
>>Should the ability to post a comment following an eham.net article be removed?<<
Hmmm. Here’s my 2 cents:
How about the ability to remove articles that should be posted in the Elmer’s Forum like this one? http://www.eham.net/articles/19984
How about the ability to remove articles that are posted only to promote a flame throwing contest?
How about the ability to remove articles that are just troll bait and nothing else?
How about the ability to remove articles that are ones personal opinion that is mean spirited?
If you remove such articles like this, there might not be the trash talk post, and then there would not be a need to remove comments. The author should post articles that are clear, concise, informative, and constructive without the smug smart-alecky crap that we normally see. If you want more hams to subscribe to eHam, then filter the junk out.
And yes, ban the “NO CALL” clowns!!
73 de KG6WLS
Posted by
KG6WLS
on September 27, 2008
|
|
KC8BYF has had a metldown
|
Is it possible to ban somebody for being a lunatic?
If so, I vote we ban this guy.
Reason: Wasted bandwidth, and bandwidth has a cost.
Posted by
WB2WIK
on September 27, 2008
|
|
Uhh???
|
I could be wrong but, I think KB8BYF is upset about something! I dont know what but he sure is on a tear! Can someone help him?
Posted by
N0FPE
on September 27, 2008
|
|
Survey Says
|
I think the numbers in the survey say it all.
Now...Will EHam change it??
KT4WO
Posted by
KT4WO
on September 27, 2008
|
|
Survey Says
|
I think the numbers in the survey say it all.
Now...Will EHam change it??
KT4WO
Posted by
KT4WO
on September 27, 2008
|
|
Honorable , too!
|
If you look at the Declaration of Independence, why some of them used "handles" and a lot more wanted to sign it, but they liked being anonymous. - This is what they teach in public schools.
Come on! What sacred publishng "right" is there in being "anonymous"? You've got to be kidding or brainless! - Ray Mullin, AI2IA
Posted by
AI2IA
on September 27, 2008
|
|
RE: Silly
|
"Just roll the moousewheel past the article and go on to the next. Gee Whiz!"
Stop making sense! It will confuse too many people here.
73s John AA5JG
Posted by
AA5JG
on September 26, 2008
|
|
Silly
|
|
Perhaps we should not allow cell phone use without showing a license. Wanna fax something? Sorry OM, you do not have a valid license. Writing an article for the paper or magazine under a pseudonym? I do not think so. Please produce your amateur radio license. HOW BLOODY ABSURD!!! What problem does anybody have with anonymous posting? It is the right of any writer. If it was a requirement of the website from its implementation, then no problem. But to demand it because anyone cannot stand the thought of anonymity is preposterous. What the hell is keeping anybody from scrolling past articles posted by those without a call anyway? Just roll the moousewheel past the article and go on to the next. Gee Whiz!
Posted by
KN8AW
on September 26, 2008
|
|
|
|
I do not mind people making nasty statements about a posting. We do not have to agree on everything. If a person wants to be abusive it is only a reflection on their character not yours. But I think anyone should have enough convictions in their opinion that they should have enough guts to identify themselves. It is like the cowardly hams that come by a frequency and make a comment and does not have the guts to give a call sign. That is illegal on the air, and of course it is not illegal here on the Internet. When someone cares enough to post an article, you would think the folks running this page would insist that only identified persons are allowed to comment. Anyone can read but only registered hams should be allowed to respond. And I am proud of my call, name and opinion.
Posted by
W3OZ
on September 26, 2008
|
|
Look at the record.
|
|
If you were to lay side-by-side the posts of actual hams who post with their call signs and the posts of anonymous posters using "handles," what will you see? You will see the majority of ham posted comments are relevant, while the majority, not all but most, handle posted comments are sub-standard or worse. How would the Journal of the American Medical Association look if the editor allowed articles submitted by anyone using a "handle"? It would quickly become just like eHam.net. Need more be said?
Posted by
AI2IA
on September 26, 2008
|
|
Leave well enough alone
|
|
I like eHam just the way it is. It doesnt bother me one bit if someone chooses to post anonymously. Its a simple matter to scroll past it or ignore it if it bothers you that much. Many times Ive read rude condescending remarks from hams posting with call signs so what difference does it make if they use one or not? This is the internet, not radio. If someone says something on their mind that ruffles some feathers so what? Ive had shots thrown at me and returned them in kind. Not once did I lose any sleep over any of this. In fact, I think its good for fellow amateurs to discuss things frankly and to the point without the constraints of being on the air. It hurts nobody and at least gets issues out in the open instead of it being candy coated in phony diplomacy. If your fragile ego or feelings get hurt by this website, I suggest you seek professional help.
Posted by
KE4ZHN
on September 26, 2008
|
|
Calls yes -- Trolls no
|
If you put your call on your post. You are responsible for what you say. Trolls just lurk and hide behind their Troll names.
Let the newbies ask questions in the Elmers section. Thats what its for.
It is after all eham not etroll!
Posted by
WA7NCL
on September 26, 2008
|
|
|
Why would anyone object to signing their name or call to their own comments?
If some are ashamed of what they're posting, perhaps they shouldn't be posting it.
Posted by
NC4A
on September 26, 2008
|
|
CW sending
|
"one comment I read says only individuals with the ability to send CW should be allowed to vote, sounds hypocritical to me, or should I say elitist."
Actually I said only those who can pass a CW receiving test, and it isn't hypocritical, because I passed the 20wpm receiving test in front of the FCC.
I know that it is a ridiculous suggestion, but I posted it to point out the other ridiculous suggestion of only letting those with callsigns post comments. This is the internet, not the airwaves. There is no FCC identification rule on the internet. Requiring someone to have a callsign first is what is really elitist.
73s John AA5JG
Posted by
AA5JG
on September 26, 2008
|
|
Use Ham call only
|
i agree with others ! sould be using ham call ,i look up the call sign just to make sure.
73
Jackie
KG4ORX
Posted by
N4MJG
on September 26, 2008
|
|
Comment:
|
I agree only licensed hams should be allowed to post comments on the various articles! I often wonder why is it, every single article that is published turns into a flamming match? Would it not be better if you disagree with an article post your comment in a constructive way. As opposed to going after the author!
This is my main reason for not posting comments and articles, except in this case.
Posted by
WE6L
on September 26, 2008
|
|
Comment:
|
I agree only licensed hams should be allowed to post comments on the various articles! I often wonder why is it, every single article that is published turns into a flamming match? Would it not be better if you disagree with an article post your comment in a constructive way. As opposed to going after the author!
This is my main reason for not posting comments and articles, except in this case.
Posted by
WE6L
on September 26, 2008
|
|
Comment:
|
I agree only licensed hams should be allowed to post comments on the various articles! I often wonder why is it, every single article that is published turns into a flamming match? Would it not be better if you disagree with an article post your comment in a constructive way. As opposed to going after the author!
This is my main reason for not posting comments and articles, except in this case.
Posted by
WE6L
on September 26, 2008
|
|
|
I rather like it the way it is. Occasionally there is some uncalled for, often ignorant, comments. That aside it is certainly interesting to hear other's opinions. Whether I agree or disagree with their comments is of no concern to me or anyone else.
Have a pleasand day... Unless you have other plans!
C r a i g
Posted by
N4CQR
on September 26, 2008
|
|
No goat here
|
>(Remember no one can actually take or "get your goat", you have to give it to them.)
Posted by NV2A on September 26, 2008<
::But what if I don't have a goat?
Posted by
WB2WIK
on September 26, 2008
|
|
|
Hey boys, this is the world wide web. You gotta expect some weirdos !! I hope we don't loose our voices just because of a few jerks. I enjoy these comments and am able to filter out the jerks, they don't ruin my day one bit. I know that jerks exist in every aspect of community. I am pleased that in the ham community there are so many nice people with nice post. I just write off the insulting weirdo's as those with self-image problems or ham wannabes!
(Remember no one can actually take or "get your goat", you have to give it to them.)
Posted by
NV2A
on September 26, 2008
|
|
survey voting
|
|
one comment I read says only individuals with the ability to send CW should be allowed to vote, sounds hypocritical to me, or should I say elitist.
Posted by
KC0QLS
on September 26, 2008
|
|
S l a s h c o d e
|
I know it's a big job, and I know it's been discussed, but being able to *vote* on what comments rise to the top and what comments get buried in seven layers of hierarchical obliteration would be useful.
Trolls are invisible, the comments that the average eHam users *want* to read remain right there.
Posted by
N3OX
on September 25, 2008
|
|
VALIDATION
|
Ban folks who post without calls. PERIOD!!
That is what I'm saying.
How this website validates them, is up to the website.
I'm saying BAN those that do not post with a CALLSIGN PERIOD!!
Posted by
PLANKEYE
on September 25, 2008
|
|
Verified Users ONLY!!!
|
|
If you have to hide, we don't need to hear from you.
Posted by
KG4RUL
on September 25, 2008
|
|
Call sign required and validated
|
To me, a callsign would not be enough to solve the problem, because anyone can register with a fake callsign, or even steal one that's real but not registered with eHam.net, and pretend to be a ham.
I would not invite comments from such imposters, and they're all over the web.
Validation is important, and not difficult to accomplish. Might delay the post a few hours or even a day or two, but the post would ultimately run and be more meaningful when it does.
Posted by
WB2WIK
on September 25, 2008
|
|
CALLSIGNS YES!!
|
Ban anyone who does not post with a Call Period!!
That is a good starting point at least.
I would do it.
Don't change anything else regarding posting though.
I think everything would be cleaned right up on this website.
Right Ray? You son-of-a-gun!!
If that doesn't work, then that wasn't the problem.
At least you can eliminate a variable.
I would do it.
Posted by
PLANKEYE
on September 25, 2008
|
|
Comments
|
I think comments should only be allowed by hams who have passed a CW receiving test in front of the FCC or a qualified VE prior to April of 2000.
73s John AA5JG
Posted by
AA5JG
on September 25, 2008
|
|
leave it open!
|
|
Leave the comment sections open. Wide open! The vast majority of the comments on virtually all the topics are sensible and reflect a plethora of different viewpoints. Leave it that way. Yes, there are those who stir the pot but normal sane individuals should easily be able to figure out who the idiots are. One of the great things about e-Ham is how open it is to verbal interaction. Lids, kids and space cadets aside, this is the greatest web site for this hobby. Leave it alone. THANK YOU to all involved with this site.
Posted by
VE3ES
on September 25, 2008
|
|
Who should comment
|
|
I know from folks who are broadcast engineers that respect the hobby whose knowledge would be appreciated especially in some of the technical threads. However their numbers are far outweighed by those that simply like to "stir the pot" on controversial topics. I would like to see the comments open to all but I voted for access restricted to those that are registered on the site.
Posted by
WA3FKG
on September 25, 2008
|
|
Encourage Hams
|
All comments should be by registered folks with valid call signs. If non-hams find it interesting the "hams only" provision would encourage them to become hams.
Responsibility and accountability are part of amateur radio. Anonymous posters should be made to recognize this.
- Ray Mullin, AI2IA
Posted by
AI2IA
on September 25, 2008
|
|
survey
|
|
Ban the trolls !!!
Posted by
N9AVY
on September 25, 2008
|
|
Non ham license holder
|
I agree that non-hams should be allowed to participate. In any case, hams should be required to use their callsigns or their name on their posts while non hams be required to use their name on their posts.
If ID was required, the vitriolic posts would be all but eliminated.
Posted by
K1CJS
on September 25, 2008
|
|
and reviews also
|
|
They should only have people who have a verified amateur radio license leave reviews about the products ham radio operators use ! ! ! I see enough reviews with people hiding behind a name or no call signs at all ! ! !
Posted by
N3ANT
on September 24, 2008
|
|
Edit the articles first!
|
One gets the idea that the articles editor is a robot that lets anything and everything through. The articles that are displayed are of mixed quality. The best articles seem to result in the least amount of bickering and irrelevant comments.
73
Chuck NI0C
Posted by
NI0C
on September 24, 2008
|
|
new survey
|
I just do not see what all you folks are getting so upset about, since you are not in sight of each other as you make your responses, you are in ( often ) opposite ends of the USA and not shoulder-to-shoulder to each other.
Remember this is just the internet.
Posted by
AI4EP
on September 24, 2008
|
|
Option 3 best
|
Option 3 is the most sensible and logical solution.
Eham.Net is a mine of interesting Ham information.
KH6/G3SEA
Posted by
G3SEA
on September 24, 2008
|
|
edit trash!
|
Someone(yes I will volunteer) to edit out the smart alek and nasty comments at least daily. Keeps out the trash. But keep the right to say what the person wants in socially acceptable limits. Ya don't have to be nasty or cuss.
Great hobby and great web site, Keep it up.
JIMBO W4EPA
Posted by
W4EPA
on September 24, 2008
|
|
non-hams
|
there may be legitimate interested non-hams that enjoy the forum and wish to have the ability to participate, so there should be an additional registration method for them.
I read and participate in forums in a number of hobbies and my observation is that moderated forums with registered uses tend to be MUCH more civil and stay on or near the thread.
AA4Q
Posted by
AA4Q
on September 24, 2008
|
|
Ham Only
|
|
I think all comments should be from e-ham subscribed licensed Hams only. A lot of the comments are very ridiculous and have nothing to do with subject matter. Please change it. This would be a lot better source of real information if we could clean it up.
Posted by
KA5JRX
on September 24, 2008
|
|
Users with valid ID only
|
I kind of agree with N1OU also.
No problem with comments, but I think they should be qualified by the use of a real and validated callsign.
Posted by
WB2WIK
on September 24, 2008
|
|
|
|
Yes. Stop the comments. Most people just use it as a way to argue, insult and be nasty. Very few comments are truly constructive.
Posted by
KB2WQT
on September 24, 2008
|
|
comments
|
I enjoy reading all the stupid comments, written so terribly, with such lousy grammar,
and with such a lack of punctuation.
Makes me proud I at least finished high school.
Allen
Posted by
WB9URN
on September 24, 2008
|
|
Editing or removing a comment
|
I think that we should be able to edit our comments or remove them.
73
George
K3UD
Posted by
K3UD
on September 24, 2008
|
|
Good Survey
|
|
I agree that a lot of the tripe can be removed if only registered, legitimate responses are allowed. Too many times I have noted that the comments veer away so much that they have nothing to do with the subject matter.
Posted by
KW4J
on September 24, 2008
|
|
Finally!
|
Its about time the survey was used to tell the e-Ham staff what the feelings on a particular subject is--instead of a useless, troll attracting, argument starting BS session.
This is a sore subject with me--and a lot of others. Just like N1OU, I would subscribe again if the moderation was stepped up and the anonymous posters were eliminated. If you have something worthwhile to say, back it up with your proper and legit ID, not some cutesy CB handle.
Posted by
K1CJS
on September 24, 2008
|
|
License & e-mail address
|
Bravo for doing this survey! I hope it will yield something positive for the site. Suggestion: Require comment posters to have both a valid ham call and a valid e-mail address so that off-topic "conversations" can go private instead of adding to the comments.
If eHam would clean out the trolls and flamers, I'd subscribe again. It is a great concept but shouldn't be left unguarded.
Posted by
N1OU
on September 24, 2008
|
|
comments
|
I just laugh at the rudeness, bickering and ignorant people. some of the stuff is good otherwise. Over the years, I have noted 6s, 4s and 5s are the most bickering people.
(not a scientific note)
Posted by
NY7Q
on September 24, 2008
|
|
|
Half the comments are from those of little or no knowledge of the subject posted. Rarely do they stay on track or even try to add to the author's article. The bickering, rude and insensitive comments have kept me from renewing my subscription to eHam and will remain so until some effective moderating of user input is put into place.
I enjoy and applaude those who post articles on this journal and want to see them continue. Comments notwithstanding user input is generally shallow and off subject and of little or no value.
Posted by
K9OSC
on September 24, 2008
|
|
comments to articles
|
I just ignore the bickering. If I'm not interested in the comment, I just "turn the dial"....
73
Dan
--
K9ZF /R no budget Rover ***QRP-l #1269 Check out the Rover Resource Page at: <http://www.qsl.net/n9rla> List Administrator for: InHam+grid-loc+ham-books Ask me how to join the Indiana Ham Mailing list!
Posted by
K9ZF
on September 24, 2008
|
|
New Survey
|
Thanks to AA9OC for the idea for this survey.
I have added some responses and changed some words...enjoy!
Posted by
VK5LA
on September 24, 2008
|
|
To post a comment, you must be logged in.
If you are not a member, become one now!
|
|
|
Welcome to the Survey Page.