Glen's ruling can in NO WAY be interpreted as some arbitrary prohibition of religious expression or censorship to any degree at all.
Many a discussion on religious basis has occured on this board without any inappropriate limitations whatsoever.
I too have been offended by EP's inappropriate use of the Deity as a weapon of terse retort. Often, EP's use of the Deity is hollow, which cheapens a name that many of us hold dear. Some might even argue that his use of it is blasphemous. While any vain use of His name offends some, repeated and persistent vain use of His name is sure to offend many, even those who don't regard His name as Holy.
Not that Glen needs any support on this issue at all, and in full deference to Glen's right to enforce whatever rules deemed appropriate by the Owner of QRZ, I agree with Glen's admonition to EP and I also echo it.
I won't pile on, but I'm glad this issue is settled. And I won't inappropriately overstate Glen's intent by pointedly avoiding any discussions of a religious nature on this board. That is NOT the point of Glen's prohibition if I am reading Glen correctly, and I think I am.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KI4FCP @ April 16 2004,13:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I only obey the writen rules, not rules of whim or personal opinon. #This too is a private board and there are rules however I dont see where this crosses any of them. #When you invite others to your playground you cant expect them to only play your way, pretty soon you will be alone with no one to play with.
Just my 2 cents LOL #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't have a problem with it, however...
When you play in my playground you play by my rules or you don't play. And I don't care if no one wants to play or not. Who needs someone who can't be respectful of my playground? The same rules apply on this forum.
When you participate in this forum it's like being in someone's living room. We are all guest here and post at the pleasure of Mr.Fred Lloyd. What he says goes. If he doesn't like it you have three choices availible:
1. Change your behavior.
2. Stop posting period.
3. Continue with the inappropiate postings and get added to qrz's hall of shame as a banned poster.
The choice is yours.
73 de Gary
"If you ever find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop dig'n." - Will Rogers
Fred Lloyd's concept that this is HIS house and that we will abide by his rules or hit the road has an equally legitimate application on the airwaves too.
When a person participates in a net, or a rag chew group, that person should also expect to abide by the net rules, right?
If a group of like minds gets together and creates a group and establishes rules to preserve the desireable characteristics of the net, or to set standards of participation, nobody has the right to purposely defy the rules mutually agreed upon by the members of the group in order to disrupt the group.
This should be commonly accepted as common sense but you'd be surprised to learn how many hams think the only rules they need to follow are the FCC rules. Those of that mentality usually don't abide by ANY rules at all, including the FCC rules.
Most of the wars and conflicts we hear on the HF bands are the result of a conflict arising because somebody joined a group and then decided they were no longer going to play by the rules established by the group. When asked to leave, the disruptive ham decides he won't abide by that rule either and defiantly stays on the frequency and continues to be disruptive. At that point, the disruptive ham becomes a malicious interferer, as defined in the FCC rules and is in violation.
When Fred, or one of his assigns (Glen) tells us that if we want to play here, we better abide by the rules here, then we better damn well take heed.
Likewise, when we are on the air and a net control station admonishes us to abide by the rules, he has the same authority as Fred to kick the anarchistic seat of our pants to the curb. And if we don't go quickly, we will be regarded as malicious interference and we may be taped and filed upon for being in violation.
You're OK in my book, take your medicine and report back for duty.
K9STH seems rock solid to me. If I screw up (even though my id may disagree), Much rather have him fire a warning shot than pull the plug.
Just an opin..hope you understand.
You step in the stream,
but the water has moved on.
It is in our lives and not our words that our religion must be read.
Incredible as is seems, my life is based on a true story.
If everyone played by "the rules" there would be no freedom of religion.
Anyone who has read this forum for any length of time knows that some people have a certain "bent", in the way they like to post. Often times while they may think they are being humorous, they may often come off as snide.
It may well be a matter of ones own perceptions vs. the perceptions of most others. If an individual comes off as smarmy to everyone else then perhaps it is time for that individual to do some soul searching and spend some time for introspection.
I do not believe it is about supression of ones religious views but as EBM put it, it does not sound sincere. It rings of a hollow tone and as a result comes off as disrespectful. I hate CB'ers! Praise God! I hate no code! Praise God! I hate girls in low cut dresses! Praise God!
While I may agree with some of the topic starters opinions, I do often feel they are just an attempt at getting in his digs and as often as he posts I believe we have a clear cut view of most, if not all, of his opinions. I must also add that, we would not be having this discussion had the topic starter not brought a private wrist slap out into the open. I can only guess that he was hoping that more of us would jump on the bandwagon in support of his particular view on something that COULD have remained private.
As far as religious views go, I think one could start a topic to discuss them without going the route of proselytizing and in keeping it an objective discussion, all parties involved may be more enriched as opposed to, well, "pissed".
That is my opinion and I appreciate AI4EP's opinion as well as everyone else's opinion on this forum. I hope to be a member and user of QRZ.com for a long time to come as it has enriched my life and taught me to be a better person (and it's not always an easy lesson) not just to myself and those on this board but to those on the air and in my own personal life, Ham and non-Ham alike.
Thanks to everyone,
73 de KG4CGC, Charles C.
The Voice Of Seasoning
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD5UJX @ April 16 2004,18:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is a tough call. Suppresion of religious freedom? Suppression of free speech? However, I would not walk into a Tabernachel and yell "Jesus is Lord" however much I may believe that. Once in a while is fine, but a consant diet is a little too much. Play by the rules or take your toys and go home [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There is no free speech here.
Free speech is the ability to go plant your soapbox on the street corner and spout whatever it is you want to spout without government thugs coming and beating you up. Or pretty much anything that follows this standard. This isn't a street corner; it's a building paid for by the owner of QRZ and he and his minions can squelch whatever it is they like; or don't like.
For that matter, all rights afforded in this country STOP where the rights of another start. Certainly the freedom of religion stops where someone's freedom of NO religion starts. And where the boundaries are not defined by rights, they are certainly defined by ettiquette.