From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:07 pm
writes:
Paul W. Schleck wrote on Sat, Sep 30 2006 7:23 am
writes:
Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than enough basis for your
peers to judge.
"Peers?" :-)
I have only a Commercial radio operator license, not an
amateur radio one. I've been involved and experienced in
radio communications since 1953. There are about three
quarter million US amateur radio licenses granted but
there are about 300 million US citizens. I am in the
latter group. How can you say "my peers?"
I chose the word "peers" very carefully and deliberately here. I
anticipated that you would want to define who your "peers" are, and that
they would not be us.
Tsk, I don't think so. Despite alluding to prescient powers,
you could not possibly know what I was about to write. :-)
Who you mean by "us," white man? I've been a moderator on
more than one public discussion board on each of three BBSs.
When you say "us" then you cannot restrict that to the
"moderating team" to be. I was doing moderating successfully
before this newsgroup came into being. You really don't want
to know that, I can tell.
As I noted previously, "Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than
enough evidence for your peers to judge," regardless of who you define
your "peers" to be.
Your definition of "peers" seem to be solely the "moderating
team" and any olde-tymers in US amateur radio who've passed
the 20 WPM code test. I will NEVER fit into THAT peer group.
:-) guffaw, not just a little smiley
Neither will I fit any "peer group" that self-righteously
maintains the OLD standards and practices, pretending to be
professionals in an amateur activity. 'Maintenance' of the
old allegedly on 'traditional' rationalizations but really
meaning Their personal preferences which they attempt to
force on all others.
I will not fit into any "peer group" of inflated egos with
pretentious titles-rank-priveleges by which They imagine
are some kind of uberamateur and great radio guru...
especially those titles-rank-privileges which were lobbied
for by even earlier pretentious amateurs wanting to be
"professional amateurs."
I will not fit into any bigoted group that makes fun of
and insults any other radio service in the USA...just
because they don't follow some "amateur way."
I will not fit into any "peer group" of non-serving elites
who don't understand that real service to their country is
not by having a radio hobby...it means owning up to some
maturity and, when necessary, putting their LIFE on the
line. Voluntarily, but have accepted draftees who also
served.
I DO fit into a peer group that has an interest in radio
and electronics but doesn't need the emotional blanket of
rank-status-title to justify it. I not only FIT that but
have long worked in that environment...my career of choice
as I've explained in here. I've had NO problems getting
along with THAT peer group for a half century. But, in
this newsgroup best described as a Din of Inequity, some
deem themselves "boss" and demand some kind of strict
obediance, indeed quasi-patriotism, to the status quo.
There's been verbal "combat" in here for years, by the
few of the hamatuer order faithfulling echoing (or
parroting) the words of a minority membership
organization. Some of us spoke back at those! How
terrible! We went against the Big Brother of America!
To repeat what I said previously, which should be clear enough to
everyone else on this newsgroup:
"I can't predict for certain in advance what the final form of a
moderated newsgroup would be, or if it would even be voted into
existence on the first attempt. Specific approval/disapproval of
articles would have to wait for submission of those articles, and would
have to be decided upon by the moderation team, not just me.
Did you think public discussion forum moderation is some kind
of "new" thing? It's been going on since the early 1970s,
even on the ARPANET-turned-Usenet as well as BBSs. Precedent
EXISTS, has existed for decades.
But, I can't tell you that, ey? Nope. You've tasted the
"power of control" and are a bit drunk on it. Understand.
Been there, done that, quit trying to drink that control
stuff quickly. That control liquor will bend your mind
faster than alcohol. You've got to do some steps to learn
sensitivity to what folks write in here, tune into their
intent, see what they "*really*" say. And, above all AVOID
GETTING INTO PUBLIC ****ING CONTENTS. That only makes you
(or any "team" member) one-sided, good for nothing else but
****ing in public. You are not "relieved" to know that but
that's the plain, simple fact.
However, other moderated newsgroups that are considered successful
usually consider the following behavior to be grounds for a temporary or
permanent ban:
Why tell ME, Paul. I can expect nothing but a permanent
block of anything I write in this moderated forum. shrug
You already give clear indication of such blockage. "In
spades" I might add. :-)
And if you think that these standards, if adopted, would be unfairly
applied only to you, you would be quite mistaken.
Blah, blah, blah. You've singled ME out. Many, many OTHERS
haven't even been mentioned, not even alluded to. I am as
good as shut out for the future.
Whatever happened to all those OTHERS in here? Is your
browser broken? Do your eyes glaze over when you see
those posts, make you unable to comprehend them?
Case in point: You've written about MY "(mis)conduct."
"misconduct" of WHAT? You've not posted any "conduct"
rules that MUST be followed. Yet you've tossed in that
"(mis)conduct" statement twice. What you've done is to
make me "guilty" of some law well before that law became
law! Haw!
The "moderating team" will MAKE the "laws" of this forum
whether or not they would be fair or unfair. One thing
I know for damn sure is that I won't be able to post.
You don't want those "guilty of misconduct (or "(mis)conduct")
you want those who make nice-nice to the elite of amateur
radio as she are known now. Absolutely NO ONE will be
allowed to remain for the slightest negative statement against
the olde-tyme establishment, especially those who fail to
respect, honor TITLES. No contentiousness of any kind!
The slightest hint of contentiousness will result in
banishment. Understood. I've seen that elsewhere. On
short-lived groupings who took the same path.
You're still not getting a "73" from me.
I could care less.