Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KL7AJ, Nov 1, 2019.
I understood it just fine...
Frankly, I do not know of a single public person who has never had someone severely criticize that person's basic existence. It does not matter if the person is religious, political, business, or whatever. In fact, I don't know of anyone, period, who doesn't have a detractor who will never be persuaded to change their opinion.
Sometimes, there is a real reason for such like a personal encounter, a financial setback due to the direct action of the disliked person, or other, similar situation. However, most of the time, the reason is philosophical. The person is disliked because . . . That is, no concrete reason except in the mind of the person doing the disliking. For any number of reasons, the actions, of the disliked person, does not "agree" with the beliefs of someone and, as such, the person is just plain bad!
Of those few, who are bad-mouthing Wayne Green, can any one of them cite a concrete example of where they have actually been physically, or financially, affected by any of Wayne's actions? That does NOT include things like being intellectually insulted by one of his editorials, or disagreeing on a philosophical level. I may be mistaken. However, I believe that not one of those persons can really demonstrate such a reason.
As for the article referenced several times demeaning Wayne Green: How many participants in this thread have been involved in a contentious divorce? That is, one in which both parties are "at each other's throats". Fortunately, I have not been in such a situation (been married to my only wife for almost 55-years). However, the article was written by Wayne's first wife's new husband with, I strongly believe, a LOT of input from her. Maybe, if the truth were known, the article was actually written by her and then her new husband listed as the author as an attempt to disguise the real source of the article.
How many people have been involved in high school, or college, debate competitions? Personally, I have never been involved. However, my eldest granddaughter is presently on the University of Arizona debate team and is doing very well in national competitions. Those debate teams can be assigned either side of a topic. Are those who are assigned the side opposite of what you believe bad people because they are arguing against your beliefs? I think not!
Like it or not, controversy sells magazines and Wayne Green was in the business of selling magazines. So what if he "stirred the pot"! Doing so kept his editorials interesting. Frankly, most people do not want the same thing, month after month, in the way of editorials. Such just becomes boring!
Every month, I publish a newsletter having to do with the Civil War (circulation less than a thousand) and, in every issue, I have an editorial. Coming up with an interesting topic, every month, definitely requires some effort. Some months, choosing a topic is easy but other months it can be difficult. Of course, no where near as difficult as when I was writing a 3-times-a-week column for the Dallas Suburban Newspapers but as difficult as when I was the first FM Editor for CQ Magazine. With the newspaper columns, occasionally I could "stir the pot" but, with the FM column and with the Civil War newsletter, I just do not really have that freedom.
Wayne owned the magazines and, therefore, he had a LOT more freedom in choosing his editorial topics. He soon found out that some controversy increased the readership by a significant amount. As such, it was definitely good for business having editorials that definitely were not boring! If one did not like the editorials, no one forced them to purchase / subscribe to the magazines. If someone liked the magazine's content, but did not like the editorials, no one forced them to read the editorials. If the editorials were against your principles, so be it. You were / are free to express your displeasure. But, you also have to be prepared to accept the opinions of others who disagree with your views. Unfortunately, there are a few people participating in this thread who are quite willing to express "their" opinion but who are also very critical of those persons with opposite opinions even approaching the personal attack mode.
Unfortunately, what you have cited is way too commonplace in both this QRZ.com forum and in the "Just Talking-political" forum.
Unfortunately, such has been going on for the approaching 3-decades that I have been a moderator here on QRZ.com!
What's the context?
My understanding of that statement - and I've said pretty much the same of other people in other situations - is that, while I wouldn't APPROVE of those things for monetary gain, I would UNDERSTAND why someone would do them.
Time for this thread to end as trolling will never cease, every time you reply will generate another question or statement that you "just have to reply to".
Glen said it all very well
So, let me ask this:
Is it OK to tell flat out lies if those lies sell magazines?
I don't mean differences of opinion.
I mean knowingly printing stuff that just isn't true, in order to "stir the pot" and increase circulation?
Or how about this.....
Suppose something is heavily taxed in one state but not in another.
Suppose it is practical - though illegal - for someone to purchase quantities of the something in the low tax state and resell it in the high tax state, and make some serious money "under the table" in the process?
Is that OK?
Is it just a matter of "feelings" or "philosophy"?
Is it somehow wrong to not approve?
Please quote absolute lies made in the 73 Magazine editorials written by Wayne Green. Not things that you disagreed with but that can be proven to be absolute lies. There are scans of the magazines available on the Internet. There were lies, personal attacks, etc., that were in 73 Magazine in editorials written by a certain, short-term, editor and a number of the attacks were aimed at ME when I was the first FM Editor of CQ Magazine. Wayne Green personally, and publicly, apologized for these editorials when we co-chaired the FM forum at SAROC, in Las Vegas, in early January 1972. That particular individual was "sent packing" after only a very few months of being associated with 73 Magazine.
If anyone should have a grudge with Wayne I could certainly be that person because of the editorials that attacked me personally. However, he definitely apologized for those editorials and I wrote a fair number of articles that were published in 73 Magazine both before, and after, the attacks. Wayne, and I, were friends, not close friends, but friends, for decades. My last contact with Wayne was in an E-Mail exchange several months before he died.
In his later years, Wayne did endorse some "way out" ideas. But, at least in my opinion, such does not detract from his many years associated with 73 Magazine.
Purchasing items in one state and then reselling in another state and NOT collecting the sales tax IS breaking the law. That is a completely different matter and has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand! You are presenting a "red herring" to try to bolster your opinion and to draw attention away from the heart of the discussion.
Freedom of the Press prevails, and as I recall most of Wayne's kooky ideas and claims were in his editorials.
In editorials, anyone (especially the editor) can write whatever they want. Most newspapers have an Op-Ed section ("opposite the editorial page") where other contributors who aren't the editor may have published anything they chose to write, if the editorial staff chooses to publish it.
I read a lot of newspapers and news magazines, and quite a lot of editorial and op-ed pieces are silly nonsense, akin to Breitbart or InfoWars. But I believe Freedom of the Press is still a good thing.