R L Measures wrote:
>
> On Jun 25, 2006, at 3:06 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
>
>>> Amps is not a forum for either praising or burying Caesar.
>>
>>
>> The truth is 'amps' has been like this for as long as I can recall. I
>> use a number of mailing lists and newsgroups, but the S/N on here is
>> lower than any other. I don't know why, but IMHO it is a fact. I have
>> unsubscribed more than once because of the the poor quality.
>
>
>
> One thing that would cause me to unsubscribe is if moderator refuses to
> allow NFB on information that is not supported by Ohm's law.
What's NFB?
It if is what I think you might mean (Negative Feedback) then I believe
"constructive criticism" would be a better term, rather than some
'eBayism'. I know eBay seems to be taking over the world, but don't help
them on their way. (If I misunderstand you, please correct me)
But one of the many problems on here is that on a significant number of
occasions the criticisms are not constructive, but aggressive and personal.
Perhaps (and I think its worth a try), moderation of those who get
personal would be useful. The argument you use in another post about
McCarthy bringing down McCarthy just does not seem to be happening.
Just a short (1 day or so) disabling of an account might clean it up a bit.
On many occasions the same arguments appear all the time. Sometimes if
the arguments could be written on a web page and someone pointed to that
it would be useful. I tried to do with the RMS power argument.
http://www.g8wrb.org/useful-stuff/rmspower.shtml
--
Dr. David Kirkby
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|