"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:35 CST, marc wrote:
Consider this (relatively) new ham all in favor.

Marc, KD5LUR
[this followup directed only to rram and rrap]

The followups in the original RFD were directed to news.groups.proposals
and ONLY to news.groups.proposals for a reason: That group is moderated.
Hence, I trimmed that moderated newsgroup from this thread, because this
thread is not presently following the no crossposts protocol.

The discussion has just begun, and already you people are incapable of
following directions.

Indeed, Mark Morgan is correct that a search of Google Groups reveals
that Paul W. Schleck has NOT been a user of the groups he proposes to
rescue. As a non-user, his credibility will be hurt with the Big 8
Board if they continue with their past behavior. However, the
suggested moderators are not strangers to the rec.radio.amateur news
groups, and that should help immeasurably.

"lloyd" Hand has barely posted in in the last year I don't ever recall
seeing mr cook post here or never seen much of mr Diepenbrock Jim
Hapmton is a rare psoter as well Mr Angus I do not recall seeing at all
( i have NOT googled them to check hovere


But Mark has an axe to grind and actually fears the creation of a
moderated group.

incorrect I do not faer a fairly moderated one I don't believ e that is
being proposed

That's one of the reasons that I will file a proper
comment to news.groups.proposals in favor of the creation of the new
group. I would like to see abusers like Mark lose their ability to
destroy any rec.radio.amateur news group at will.

but you had no objection to vadaliizing the ngs YOURself with your non
stop gay bashing nor did you object To Roberson eneging in such gay
bashing pedohia accusations it is only someone defending themselves you
object to

Should
rec.radio.amateur.moderated be approved, that will be a group which
cannot be vandalized by his kind.

instead since one th e lessor vandals is proosed as a modert discusion
is simply to be stiffed

and you are one of the vandal not Lloyd your history is clear

There will be no impact on anyone using rrap or rram, because both of
those groups will continue "as is." According to the RFD, the new group
will be an additional group in which noise suppression by means of a
robot will at first be attempted. I see no reason for anyone to oppose
the creation of such a group, and I can see that there is at least the
possibility that it will turn out to be an asset to the amateur radio
community.

the possiblity exists I agree but I doubt it

So I say, yes! Go ahead and give it a try. Only kooks can possibly
feel threatened by its creation. I will shortly post an affirmative
comment in news.groups.proposals.

good luck

Also note that, by posting your comments only to news.groups.proposals,
you will assured that people like Mark can't try out what they call
"thread hijacking." The vandals are powerless there.

indeed the NG will not even permit me to post my comments or to vote
that makes the lack of fairness of the result obvious from before we
begin

why not make a real proposaul and do thing fairly


You can't be serious. Why not include you? Because your objectionable and
continually disruptive behaviour preceeds you, Mark. Your record with QRZ is
one indicator, but the other, and worst, is that you were summarily banned
from the very bottom-feeder of groups, the Nim Busters board.
Your vote and/or comments is just what a new, moderated group does NOT need.
YOU are exactly what a moderated group is, by design, intending to prohibit.

You are solely responsible for your bed of thorns, Mark. Now lay in, accept
it, and stop whining.

"Katie" anon@anon wrote in message ...

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:35 CST, marc wrote:
Consider this (relatively) new ham all in favor.

Marc, KD5LUR
[this followup directed only to rram and rrap]

The followups in the original RFD were directed to
news.groups.proposals
and ONLY to news.groups.proposals for a reason: That group is
moderated.
Hence, I trimmed that moderated newsgroup from this thread, because
this
thread is not presently following the no crossposts protocol.

The discussion has just begun, and already you people are incapable of
following directions.

Indeed, Mark Morgan is correct that a search of Google Groups reveals
that Paul W. Schleck has NOT been a user of the groups he proposes to
rescue. As a non-user, his credibility will be hurt with the Big 8
Board if they continue with their past behavior. However, the
suggested moderators are not strangers to the rec.radio.amateur news
groups, and that should help immeasurably.

"lloyd" Hand has barely posted in in the last year I don't ever recall
seeing mr cook post here or never seen much of mr Diepenbrock Jim
Hapmton is a rare psoter as well Mr Angus I do not recall seeing at all
( i have NOT googled them to check hovere


But Mark has an axe to grind and actually fears the creation of a
moderated group.

incorrect I do not faer a fairly moderated one I don't believ e that is
being proposed

That's one of the reasons that I will file a proper
comment to news.groups.proposals in favor of the creation of the new
group. I would like to see abusers like Mark lose their ability to
destroy any rec.radio.amateur news group at will.

but you had no objection to vadaliizing the ngs YOURself with your non
stop gay bashing nor did you object To Roberson eneging in such gay
bashing pedohia accusations it is only someone defending themselves you
object to

Should
rec.radio.amateur.moderated be approved, that will be a group which
cannot be vandalized by his kind.

instead since one th e lessor vandals is proosed as a modert discusion
is simply to be stiffed

and you are one of the vandal not Lloyd your history is clear

There will be no impact on anyone using rrap or rram, because both of
those groups will continue "as is." According to the RFD, the new
group
will be an additional group in which noise suppression by means of a
robot will at first be attempted. I see no reason for anyone to oppose
the creation of such a group, and I can see that there is at least the
possibility that it will turn out to be an asset to the amateur radio
community.

the possiblity exists I agree but I doubt it

So I say, yes! Go ahead and give it a try. Only kooks can possibly
feel threatened by its creation. I will shortly post an affirmative
comment in news.groups.proposals.

good luck

Also note that, by posting your comments only to news.groups.proposals,
you will assured that people like Mark can't try out what they call
"thread hijacking." The vandals are powerless there.

indeed the NG will not even permit me to post my comments or to vote
that makes the lack of fairness of the result obvious from before we
begin

why not make a real proposaul and do thing fairly


You can't be serious. Why not include you? Because your objectionable and
continually disruptive behaviour preceeds you, Mark. Your record with QRZ
is
one indicator, but the other, and worst, is that you were summarily banned
from the very bottom-feeder of groups, the Nim Busters board.
Your vote and/or comments is just what a new, moderated group does NOT
need.
YOU are exactly what a moderated group is, by design, intending to
prohibit.

You are solely responsible for your bed of thorns, Mark. Now lay in,
accept
it, and stop whining.




Well said! Now Mark, take that! Ha!



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"an_old_friend" ) writes:
KC4UAI wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:08 -0600, "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU"
wrote:
SNIP

first the timing of this proposal would seem to indicate that the
makers of the of are unable to deviler the proposed NG in a timely
manner as this was first being discussed in July 2006 with a promised
delveiery date of falll 2006 as can be by this being JAN 2007 I find
it highly dubious that the ng can in fact function in timely if it
can't be rolled out in a timly manner

I don't see a valid reason to object for this reason. This was in
progress for quite some time and the fact that we didn't rush out and
file the RFD before we felt we where ready seems like a good thing to
me.

that you clearly under estimated the time required casts doubts on your
ability to deliver the rest

It's likely worth pointing out that their "ability to deliver" actually
rests on outsiders.

This isn't a popularity vote (and of course this isn't yet a vote). The
process is about ensuring that not yet another unneeded newsgroup is
created. So while I forget the exact proportions, a Call for Vote
requires not just sufficient votes in favor, but those votes have
to be greater than the no votes. And unlike those particularly
interested in the topic at hand, the no votes can come from everywhere,
because yet another newsgroup requires more resources, and the voting
process is to filter out the unneeded.

So a vote, if it gets that far (and getting to a vote also
depends on those outsiders), will require not just convincing
hams to vote for it, it requires convincing outsiders that there
is good reason not to vote against the new newsgroup.

I should also point out, while I'm posting, that you'd actually
want disinterested moderators. Because then they'd be filtering
the junk, and not being concerned with what is being said beyond
making sure it's not off-topic. "Balanced" moderators may be
worse than disinterested moderators.

Michael VE2BVW

wrote in message
news
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:59:17 -0600, "U-Know-Who"
wrote:




"Katie" anon@anon wrote in message ...






Well said! Now Mark, take that! Ha!

take what Tom another is Not Lloyd batch of lies and half truth and
outright fantsy
http://bi-boi.blogspot.com/

No Markie. It is the truth. You deserve the mess you've made for yourself.



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

U-Know-Who wrote:
wrote in message
news

take what Tom another is Not Lloyd batch of lies and half truth and
outright fantsy
http://bi-boi.blogspot.com/

now you join the ranks of the outright forgers I see Tom

No Markie. It is the truth. You deserve the mess you've made for yourself.

it is lie the problem is not of My making at all. It results from Steve
to go stlaking ing into my life bring up something I never would deny
and try to balckmail me with he then moved on to making death threats
about it

I certainly did nothing to deserve being blackmailed nor do I deserve
to be harrassed by the like of you who I hope but doubt would be
excluded by the proposed moderation which is the topic of this thread
dispite your efforts at threadjacking

no one deserves to be threatened with MURDER and meyhem and harrased
for many simply for being Bisexaul and out of the closet my principle
objection to the proposal is that one of the proposed mods is guilty of
gay bashing HERE in RRAP another the listed prime author is guilty of
aserting preveldges for himself that he has tried to deny others

I have no real obection to a moderated gruop but I object to one
moderated unfairly as I expect this proposal to result in if adopted in
its present form

http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
ups.com...

U-Know-Who wrote:
wrote in message
news

take what Tom another is Not Lloyd batch of lies and half truth and
outright fantsy
http://bi-boi.blogspot.com/

now you join the ranks of the outright forgers I see Tom

No Markie. It is the truth. You deserve the mess you've made for
yourself.

it is lie the problem is not of My making at all. It results from Steve
to go stlaking ing into my life bring up something I never would deny
and try to balckmail me with he then moved on to making death threats
about it

I certainly did nothing to deserve being blackmailed nor do I deserve
to be harrassed by the like of you who I hope but doubt would be
excluded by the proposed moderation which is the topic of this thread
dispite your efforts at threadjacking

Mark, you constantly stick your big nose where it's not wanted or needed.
You deserve what you get. You don't know when to/can't keep your mouth shut.
You remind me of the little punks at school who hid behind the principle all
day talking ****, knowing all the while that when they left school walking
home that they would get the **** pounded out of them. Then the following
day, it all started over. That Mark, is you. You're only saving grace is
that this us Usenet, and no one can touch you. And Mark, yes, that is a
problem in your mental makeup. Now, the big kids are tired of you, and they
are making their own Mark-free zone, and it ****es you off. Well, just
consider that being similar to the cool kids playing sports. You can't make
the team. Get over it and move on.




no one deserves to be threatened with MURDER and meyhem and harrased
for many simply for being Bisexaul and out of the closet

Call the ACLU.

my principle
objection to the proposal is that one of the proposed mods is guilty of
gay bashing HERE in RRAP another the listed prime author is guilty of
aserting preveldges for himself that he has tried to deny others


Oh well, life is funny that way. Get used to it. You cannot change what
others think.

I have no real obection to a moderated gruop but I object to one
moderated unfairly as I expect this proposal to result in if adopted in
its present form

Did anyone ask you what you objected to?




Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

wrote:
On 10 Jan 2007 15:33:42 -0800, "KC4UAI" wrote:


an_old_friend wrote:
KC4UAI wrote:
wrote:
snip

you missed it I object to the fact that one of the pronent (paul) of
the moderated aserts from himself preveledges that he attacks me for
for when I do the same thing

particaularly when this person proposes to be a moderator


One on the team of many, and hopefully more folks will be willing to
help with the moderation tasks.

snip
Second, are you saying that you don't think the criteria used to
evaluate prospective postings are acceptable or that you don't think it
will be used fairly?

I don't know that I understand the criteria so I don't know/. some
RRAP poster such Dave Heil have argued that My sexuality is relavant
to RRAP as somehow reflecting on my trustworthness and other charter
related isses I conceed he has SOME point in this but how your
crtieria would deal with this I don't know. Given the inclusion in the
moderating team a man that has expressed strong antiBLGT views I don't
realy excpect even handed treament

I would not expect that any of this would be "in play" in a new group.
Read the proposed criteria and decide for yourself. I for one don't
intend to be heavy handed in the moderation. Stay on topic and be
respectful to others and I'm not going to reject your posts.

snip Nowhere does the proposed policy list "disagreement with the
moderator's personal views" as grounds for rejection of posts.

so what? your moderator are indeed stil human

Thus the appeals process. I don't expect that we will always get it
100% right the first time, but I hope we can keep things in the center
of the road most of the time by getting a number of folks all looking
at it objectively.


You and I have had debates on these forums in the past.

have we realy? I honestly don't recall any

Perhaps we haven't, but I thought I was responding to a different
person "an old friend" with whom I recall having a few debates over the
last year.

I cannot speak
for the whole team, nor can I address posts of yours I haven't read,
but I don't seem to recall any of your posts that I would have rejected
based on the conditions in the proposed RFD.

where I recall post of my own that I would HOPE you would rejected I
would also HOPe that I would not find need to resort to those tactics

I hope that if the RFD ends up generating the new group that merely the
threat of being moderated would keep things under control and the
actual moderation task will be very limited.

Indeed from reading Ruals Post I believe I am personaly am one of the
targets of this effort. Indeed Paul seem to begin to complain about
RRAP when I choose to finaly RESPOND in something like kind to the
treatment that he began to object I can recall posts and private email
from Pual derected at my posts and I saw no posts from him comending
the posts that drove to those unpleasent tactics

Having been involved in the formation of the RFD and involved in the
debate of the moderation policy, I don't think any of these personal
issues matter to the proposed group and certainly is not part of any
discussions the proposed moderators have had by my mail records. I for
one would not stand by and let personal differences knowingly impact
moderation decisions by me or others in the team. This is why the
appeal process in the RFD was included and why we are even now
appealing for more volunteers to help with the moderation tasks.

-= bob =-

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:53:15 -0600, "U-Know-Who"
wrote:


"an_old_friend" wrote in message
roups.com...

U-Know-Who wrote:
wrote in message
news
take what Tom another is Not Lloyd batch of lies and half truth and
outright fantsy
http://bi-boi.blogspot.com/

now you join the ranks of the outright forgers I see Tom

No Markie. It is the truth. You deserve the mess you've made for
yourself.

it is lie the problem is not of My making at all. It results from Steve
to go stlaking ing into my life bring up something I never would deny
and try to balckmail me with he then moved on to making death threats
about it

I certainly did nothing to deserve being blackmailed nor do I deserve
to be harrassed by the like of you who I hope but doubt would be
excluded by the proposed moderation which is the topic of this thread
dispite your efforts at threadjacking

Mark, you constantly stick your big nose where it's not wanted or needed.

the same can siad of yourself

You deserve what you get. You don't know when to/can't keep your mouth
shut.

bull**** you seem to want to try and force other to toe YOUR personal
insanity


What?


You remind me of the little punks at school who hid behind the principle
all
day talking ****, knowing all the while that when they left school walking
home that they would get the **** pounded out of them.

nah you are the one that hides behind someone talking **** in your
case knowing you are safe

Then the following
day, it all started over. That Mark, is you.




nope

Yes, Mark.


You're only saving grace is
that this us Usenet, and no one can touch you.

another lie Tom you can easily find my address and show up anytime and
deal with me. I can't stop you from making the trip. I have no
intention of trying, but if you try any **** one or both of will end
up DEAD either you will be forced to kill me after I find out who you
are on my land or I will kill for being a clear threat to my safety
with yourself frequent coments about beating people up or we will kill
each other.


Are you threatening me, Mark?



those are the facts Tom you are afraid of the light of day as you
should be I am not untouchable and I know it. OTOH I feel there are
principles worth taking some rsik for. I make that choice freely the
rest is up to you and the rest I judge unlikely any of you will have
the combination of guts and insaity needeed to make the trip. OTOH I
am prepared for one of you to prove me wrong

You don't matter that much.



And Mark, yes, that is a
problem in your mental makeup.
being brave can be a mental illness if taken to extreme


Ok, brave guy.

Now, the big kids are tired of you, and they
are making their own Mark-free zone, and it ****es you off.

gibven the fact they need a vote at some and I frankly DO have friends
I supect they are more likely to listen to my concerns and avoid a
fight with me rather choose to fight


You crack me up! Do you really consider yourself that worthy an opponent?
LOL!

nor do I expect it to Mark Free I merely expect with gay bashing mod
it will be an uphill fight

The problem is the most of these so called have no real idea of how
people like have been operating

Well, just
consider that being similar to the cool kids playing sports. You can't
make
the team. Get over it and move on.

I can make the team Tom you can't or at least you will have to make up
a lot of nyms to do so


Ok Konstans, An old freind, an old friend, Mark@whatever, ad infinitum....




no one deserves to be threatened with MURDER and meyhem and harrased
for many simply for being Bisexaul and out of the closet

Call the ACLU.

why?

my principle
objection to the proposal is that one of the proposed mods is guilty of
gay bashing HERE in RRAP another the listed prime author is guilty of
aserting preveldges for himself that he has tried to deny others


Oh well, life is funny that way. Get used to it. You cannot change what
others think.

I don't care what they think Tom I care what they DO

See what caring gets you.


I have no real obection to a moderated gruop but I object to one
moderated unfairly as I expect this proposal to result in if adopted in
its present form

Did anyone ask you what you objected to?

yes Paul Shecnk and Bob KC4CAI haven't you been reading the thread
Tom?

No, they just stated the way it will be. You were not asked if it was ok
with you. LOL!



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

wrote in message
...
On 10 Jan 2007 19:17:47 -0800, "KC4UAI" wrote:


wrote:
On 10 Jan 2007 15:33:42 -0800, "KC4UAI" wrote:


an_old_friend wrote:
KC4UAI wrote:
wrote:
snip

you missed it I object to the fact that one of the pronent (paul) of
the moderated aserts from himself preveledges that he attacks me for
for when I do the same thing

particaularly when this person proposes to be a moderator


One on the team of many, and hopefully more folks will be willing to
help with the moderation tasks.

one bad aple can as I understnad the matter make mylfe hell

snip
Second, are you saying that you don't think the criteria used to
evaluate prospective postings are acceptable or that you don't think it
will be used fairly?

I don't know that I understand the criteria so I don't know/. some
RRAP poster such Dave Heil have argued that My sexuality is relavant
to RRAP as somehow reflecting on my trustworthness and other charter
related isses I conceed he has SOME point in this but how your
crtieria would deal with this I don't know. Given the inclusion in the
moderating team a man that has expressed strong antiBLGT views I don't
realy excpect even handed treament

I would not expect that any of this would be "in play" in a new group.
Read the proposed criteria and decide for yourself. I for one don't
intend to be heavy handed in the moderation. Stay on topic and be
respectful to others and I'm not going to reject your posts.

I do expect it play it has too ingrained in this gruop to expect it is
going away anytime soon

but somebody else can and indeed how will I even know it was done?

snip Nowhere does the proposed policy list "disagreement with the
moderator's personal views" as grounds for rejection of posts.

so what? your moderator are indeed stil human

Thus the appeals process. I don't expect that we will always get it
100% right the first time, but I hope we can keep things in the center
of the road most of the time by getting a number of folks all looking
at it objectively.

which work HOW? I certainly see nothing that tells how I will know a
post has been rejected or why or anything on how this apeals process
is suposed to work


You and I have had debates on these forums in the past.

have we realy? I honestly don't recall any

Perhaps we haven't, but I thought I was responding to a different
person "an old friend" with whom I recall having a few debates over the
last year.

I am not saying you are wrong but I don't recall seeing your call at
least not very often


I cannot speak
for the whole team, nor can I address posts of yours I haven't read,
but I don't seem to recall any of your posts that I would have rejected
based on the conditions in the proposed RFD.

where I recall post of my own that I would HOPE you would rejected I
would also HOPe that I would not find need to resort to those tactics

I hope that if the RFD ends up generating the new group that merely the
threat of being moderated would keep things under control and the
actual moderation task will be very limited.

that is a hope but given the behavoir HERE of a number of the worst
offenders I would expect you might bend up getting what amount to DoS
attack flooding the mods hoping to either get stuff through out of
fatague or prvent the NG from funtioning at all

such tactics have been used By Robeson and Wismen here, Indeed I have
used them in kind in the worst of these triades defensively not a
tactic I care for but one uses the tools at hand


Right Mark! LOL!!! You launched a DoS attack? Do you even have ANY DAMN CLUE
what you're talking about?



Indeed from reading Ruals Post I believe I am personaly am one of the
targets of this effort. Indeed Paul seem to begin to complain about
RRAP when I choose to finaly RESPOND in something like kind to the
treatment that he began to object I can recall posts and private email
from Pual derected at my posts and I saw no posts from him comending
the posts that drove to those unpleasent tactics

Having been involved in the formation of the RFD and involved in the
debate of the moderation policy, I don't think any of these personal
issues matter to the proposed group and certainly is not part of any
discussions the proposed moderators have had by my mail records. I for
one would not stand by and let personal differences knowingly impact
moderation decisions by me or others in the team. This is why the
appeal process in the RFD was included and why we are even now
appealing for more volunteers to help with the moderation tasks.

which works how given the moderation has not cleared a single post of
mine that I am aware to the proposal gruop where it bleong I am
frankly dubious of the concet proposed if I am excluded from that
process My posts have neither apeared nor has anything been the email
account they were tagged with indiacted they have
been rejected

I frankly find myself wondering if it will be physcail possible for me
to post to the proposed NG

Doubtful, at least not after the first day you are allowed there.



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

KH6HZ wrote:
Great proposal.

Can't wait to cast my vote for the affirmative.

The only dissenting opinion you'll find are those who wish to spew their
sewage into a forum like such, and will otherwise be shut out from doing so.


73
KH6HZ

Ummm, you may have missed it... there is no voting.