[FedCom] Re: Pop'Comm Columnists Phone Tapped??

[Steve Douglass]

>Ken wrote: "I think that you do the hobby harm by writing 
>unsubstantiated sensationlism
>as this!!!  Now wouldn't a retraction/explanation in one of your future
monthly columns be in order?"

I respond:  The jury is still out on whether my phone is tapped. This 
is a developing story and there have been a series of events that I 
won't elaborate on yet they may still indeed prove I am under 
surveillance. If after all is said and done I was wrong, I will 
indeed write a retraction/explanation.

BTW Ken, the definition of sensationalism is "to place excessive 
emphasis on the most shocking and emotive aspects of a subject"

The definition of unsubstantiated is "unproven".

Quoting my column: "Also it is interesting to note that friends say 
my phone sounds "funny" kind of "crackly" a condition that began 
shortly after publication. Could my phone be tapped by the Feds? 
Quiet possibly. It has happened before (another story for another 
time) but it could also be that the phone lines leading into my 
apartment are older than dirt.'

Therefore it was substantiated that my phone did sound "funny" by 
friends who called me. Was it the Feds? Maybe not, but "possibly" 
This falls under the definition of speculation, not unsubstantiated.

There are no accusations here but a retelling of the facts as I saw 
them. I did not say I was absolutely sure my phone was being tapped 
or did so without any proof whatsoever. I also said it could be 
sounding funny due to other matters.

As for sensationalism, where do I ever place excessive emphasis on 
the most shocking and emotive aspects of a subject"?  Am I writing in 
all caps? (grin) Did I exclaim "Holy #$#$%#" I'm being tapped?

This paragraph was a small snippet of the many, many pages in my 
column. It wasn't highlighted or emphasized,in any way ,shape or form.

However if anyone could be accused of "sensationalizing" anything, it 
is Ken because he choosen to alert everyone about the sensational 
possibility that my phone may have been tapped, taking a small 
snippet out of the context of the entire column. That is one reason I 
decided to chime in and post the entire paragraph.

Therefore it was your intention to spark some controversy on this 
message board by posting your comment, which you are free to do.... 
but don't call me a sensationalist without looking in the mirror 
first.

What I think Ken is doing here is finding little things to pick at, 
that bug him about this author and really isn't too concerned about 
the "disservice" I am supposedly doing to the hobby.

I seriously doubt that what I wrote will chase anyone away from 
FEDCOM monitoring. Besides, everyone assumes that the Feds subscribe 
to FEDCOM (and you can go back through the archive and find many 
messages stating this) and anyone with a smidgen of brains takes that 
into consideration when they are posting monitoring reports.

Ken has issues with my style or reporting in PopComm and has not 
failed to tell me so on numerous occasions. He's entitled to his 
opinions. Actually I hope he continues his rants about me because it 
only gets more people interested in reading my stuff and hopefully 
more involved in radio communications monitoring... and that's always 
been my goal from day one.

Glad you are reading us Ken!

-Steve Douglass










-- 
"I have spent the majority of my life listening to shortwave radios 
and scanners, but the rest of it I've wasted."