"...Reflector is getting effective at killing sales..."
Interesting comment and one that I often 'emotionally' subscribe to as
well. But that hasn't kept me from buying an Orion (or at least I don't
think so) as yet.
Please let me SUBMIT a personal reflection, a viewpoint for your
consideration:
Do reflectors like ours have more power to sway than we might consider?
Does our seemingly endless 'editorializing' and 're-editorializing'
about a particular topic --the Orion for example, or the people or
company that produce and support it -- actually bring about responsible
and just changes or merely confuse and confound those who are reading,
watching and weighing? Perhaps driving them away from the reflector as a
viable information exchange... or worse yet from purchasing a Ten-Tec
product. Might we actually be hurting the Orion's future? Are we
inadvertently becoming the 'spoilers' of our own land? Not to minimize
what our reflector thread's originator ("...effective at killing
sales....") had in mind, but isn't what is possibly happening also
happening in countless other forums.... on countless other topics?
Just how much weight do a handful of individuals have in swaying
opinions or even altering the decision making process of those looking
in? Of course this depends entirely on the forum. Discussions around the
coffee table or at the local radio club meeting have a value and weight
proportional to that moment in time and the people involved. But take a
recording of those events and place it on the Internet for countless
others to discover and read almost endlessly, and what once may have
been a half-hearted comment or jest becomes something far greater. Our
ever increasing access to and perchance irresponsible use of 'personal
publishing' via the Internet has distorted the notions of probative
discussions among a few into what can be and often is mistaken as the
considered treastises of the many.
It is not just this reflector, but more the fact that far to many who go
to the Internet for amusement, escape, or simply information do not know
how to weight the credibility and value of what they read. As a society
we have become conditioned over many generations to basically accept on
face value what we 'see in print'. After all publishers would not expend
their valuable resources on mire 'trite' and contributors would not seek
to be published unless they were very serious about the weight and
credibility of their messages. Right? I believe the publishing
'conservatism' I just referred to is changing to an alarming extent due
to the increasing influence the Internet has on our lives. The more
rigid checks and balances of the traditional press and publishing world
are giving way to individual and sometimes irresponsible unbridled
personal liberties. Few would argue that the Internet, and what it
presents as a motivator of change to our society (in fact the world), is
indeed many magnitudes that which transpired with the invention of the
printing press. Therefore what the Internet offers as a conduit of
information must be examined and re-examined as it evolves and our use
and trust in that information conduit must change accordingly.
In my opinion, this is a serious issue that gets more difficult as
Internet access for the masses becomes the norm rather than the
exception. You and I are not political prognosticators, elected
legislators, judicial guardians, or even professional reporters to the
people.... yet we are a part of a quickly growing problem as well as
major players in the eventual solution.
Don't we have the right to say and share whatever comes to our mind? In
any forum that is somehow available to us? Actually no. The old tired
and true tested argument for limits to our 'freedom of speech' is that
you don't have the right to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater if there
isn't one just because you wanted to see the reaction.! Eventually it
comes down to accepting certain inherit limits of personal freedom/
responsibility versus total personal liberty.... with an honest
conviction towards the consideration and wellbeing of our families,
friends, associates, neighbors, et al. A powerful notion that most would
gladly adhere to more readily if they could see the negative
consequences of their acts (hopefully contrary to their true desire)
more clearly.
Traditional journalists generally assume a moral responsibility to
strongly consider the message they push (and of course how what they
write may add or detract to or from their future credibility) and of
course... should their personal desires to expound outward irresponsibly
there is always the complex system of checks and balances in the
mainstream publishing environment to give them reasonable pause. Yet
even with all that journalists continually expound upon the public
pulpit their desire for unlimited 'freedom of speech' and unfettered
'access to the public.' Truly the Internet has changed the landscape
that contains public printed information into one that, while it still
appears reasonably safe to the casual traveler, it is in actuality
heavily laden with ticks, traps, blocks, pits, and quagmires! When we
place our views, opinions, musings, and messages on the Internet --
whether via a Blog, message board, public or 'semi-private' forums --
are we not taking on the combined roles of journalist, publisher, and
guardian of our personal rights versus social responsibilities? Are we
doing so with an honest awareness of the potential consequences of our
actions?
Please note that I am not suggesting anything remotely akin to Internet
usage censorship, nor am I taking sides in the pros or cons of any
particular stated issue or musing. I merely want to raise a mirror of
questions and viewpoints that we may consider before we next hit the
immortal SUBMIT button.
73,
Jerry, KG6TT
Fairfield, CA
[Satisfied Ten-Tec equipment owner and user since 1971]
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|