[Boatanchors] Sacred Cows

[fkamp]

w2agn wrote:
> Apparently, one is not permitted to criticize a Sacred Cow, such as 
> QCWA or the ARRL, or whatever.
>
I believe this has always been the case from the beginning of time.  
Criticism has a tarnishing effect on the sacredness of the cow.  Too 
much criticism and the cow just becomes another cow.  Which, of course, 
it was in the first place.

> I answered a question about QCWA with a sincere warning. Make no 
> istake, they DID vote and approve the selling of member information. 
> They admitted it to me. The only reason it was not done was it turned 
> out they did not need the funds. There is no guarantee they would not 
> do it again.
That is the most honest privacy policy disclosure I have ever read.

>
> My disgust, and what caused me to leave after 20 years as a member, 
> active in the Delaware Valley Chapter, was that they showed no 
> contrition for doing this behind the member's back. Indeed, they 
> reminded me they were within their rights as they had no "Privacy 
> Policy."
Every organization and even most individuals have 'Privacy Policies'.  
Not everyone publishes them so you need to determine what they are from 
the way they treat private information.  There may even be differences 
in what an organization considers as private information.

Most published privacy policies that I have read merely state that they 
can do whatever they wish.

The only way to keep your private information private is to avoid 
disclosing it.  Some might wonder if, once disclosed under whatever 
circumstances, does it still qualify as being private.
>
> If this doesn't bother you, then by all means, sign up. You may stop 
> sending me private emails calling me "old fart" and other not so nice 
> names. Any more such received will be just forwarded back to your ISPs.
Ooops.  I hope I have not just become involved in an ongoing dissagreement.

I was under the impression that I was the only 'old fart' on Boatanchors.

Regards,
Frank Kamp
K5DKZ