|
Gerritsen Sentenced
Seven years in prison, plus fines.
http://www.qrz.com (top two stories) More detail at: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/19/100/?nc=1 |
Gerritsen Sentenced
wrote in message ups.com... Seven years in prison, plus fines. WHO CARES? beside you. |
Gerritsen Sentenced Toiddie...Are You Paying Attention...?!?!?
|
Gerritsen Sentenced
"Paul W. Schleck" Whined & Cried in a message: Since when is discussion of amateur radio ///psycho-babble flushed//// Get a Life Schleck! |
Gerritsen Sentenced
The sociopaths have run rrap, starting when Roger
showed up. If you take anything serious here, you need to change your way of thinking. Roger changes things. Wherever he shows up on the net, the parade of societal misfits is not far behind him. If you want a near perfect model of how to deal with the fruits & nuts here, you have no furter to look than Dave Heil. Anyone who is a regular reader here knows the depraved filth that Roger has hurled at Dave Heil & his xyl. Watch how Dave responds, that is when he choses to respond to Roger. Better yet, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and turn off rrap. No one should let the crap here get to you, especially vanilla comments like "who cares." You must have an awful thin skin Paul. |
Gerritsen Sentenced
In "Herb" writes:
The sociopaths have run rrap, starting when Roger showed up. If you take anything serious here, you need to change your way of thinking. Roger changes things. Wherever he shows up on the net, the parade of societal misfits is not far behind him. If you want a near perfect model of how to deal with the fruits & nuts here, you have no furter to look than Dave Heil. Anyone who is a regular reader here knows the depraved filth that Roger has hurled at Dave Heil & his xyl. Watch how Dave responds, that is when he choses to respond to Roger. Better yet, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and turn off rrap. No one should let the crap here get to you, especially vanilla comments like "who cares." You must have an awful thin skin Paul. Since when is politely stating an obvious, face-value, and factual rebuttal considered having an "awful thin skin?" I had an opinion on the subject, intended mostly as an amplification of N2EY's comments, and chose to express it. Addressing my comments to a wider audience, not just the trolls, seemed appropriate. I take the subjects of amateur radio and amateur radio policy seriously. The fact that others do not should not be viewed as a poor reflection on me. Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness. I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a clone of Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum. Nor does he need to be a clone of me. (I would hope that Dave Heil would agree with me on this.) -- Paul W. Schleck, K3FU http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ Finger for PGP Public Key |
Gerritsen Sentenced
"Paul W. Schleck" wrote in message ... Since when is politely stating an obvious, //drivel snipped// Your problem is obvious & easily solved. Bend over, firmly grasp your shoulders, pull firmly until a loud "pop" sound is heard, now stand up straight, your problem is repaired. It was obvious to everyone else but you that your head was stuck up your ass. |
Gerritsen Sentenced
See Paul, now that you've pulled your head out of your ass,
even Mark thinks you are doing a good job! Atta Boy Paul! wrote in message ... awful thin skin Paul. I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a clone of Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum. Nor does he need to be a clone of me. well given Dave Heil support of exclusionary tacti c in the NG that was not a good admssion to make (I would hope that Dave Heil would agree with me on this.) http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ |
Gerritsen Sentenced
Paul W. Schleck wrote in
: In writes: On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:21:01 -0400, "nwx" wrote: wrote in message groups.com... Seven years in prison, plus fines. WHO CARES? beside you. well while it is off topic it is less off topi c than 90 percent of the posting lately http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ Since when is discussion of amateur radio rules and regulations, including enforcement actions, considered off-topic for this newsgroup? Paul, Ignore Mark Morgan, he ain't playing with a full deck. It's not off-topic for any radio group. I'm hoping to make this group respectable again, and you can help. If K3LT would would come back and other past RRAP CW supporters, we can kick out the anti-CW Homophiles like Woger, Mark & Lloyd, and make this group respectable again. I'd even get rid of SC and start using my callsign here again once the trash is taken out. 73 de Slow Code Keep up the good work. |
Gerritsen Sentenced Toiddie...Are You Paying Attention...?!?!?
"K4YZ" wrote in
oups.com: wrote: Seven years in prison, plus fines. http://www.qrz.com (top two stories) More detail at: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/19/100/?nc=1 Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?????? Steve, K4YZ I didn't hear Omega One today. Either the band is bad or Todd got a Pink-slip and cut power. SC |
Gerritsen Sentenced
Paul W. Schleck wrote:
In "Herb" writes: The sociopaths have run rrap, starting when Roger showed up. If you take anything serious here, you need to change your way of thinking. Roger changes things. Wherever he shows up on the net, the parade of societal misfits is not far behind him. If you want a near perfect model of how to deal with the fruits & nuts here, you have no furter to look than Dave Heil. Anyone who is a regular reader here knows the depraved filth that Roger has hurled at Dave Heil & his xyl. Watch how Dave responds, that is when he choses to respond to Roger. Better yet, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and turn off rrap. No one should let the crap here get to you, especially vanilla comments like "who cares." You must have an awful thin skin Paul. Since when is politely stating an obvious, face-value, and factual rebuttal considered having an "awful thin skin?" I had an opinion on the subject, intended mostly as an amplification of N2EY's comments, and chose to express it. Addressing my comments to a wider audience, not just the trolls, seemed appropriate. I take the subjects of amateur radio and amateur radio policy seriously. The fact that others do not should not be viewed as a poor reflection on me. Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness. I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a clone of Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum. Nor does he need to be a clone of me. (I would hope that Dave Heil would agree with me on this.) -- Paul W. Schleck, K3FU ....and I do agree with you. The more rational people we have posting in this newsgroup, the better it is and the more irrelevant those mentally unstable types become. Dave K8MN |
gay bashers are not welcome anywhere that is why they use fake names like Slow Code
Slow Code wrote: gay bashers are not welcome anywhere that is why they use fake names like Slow Code |
Gerritsen Sentenced
From: Paul W. Schleck on Wed, Sep 20 2006 3:14 pm
In "Herb" writes: The sociopaths have run rrap, starting when Roger showed up. If you take anything serious here, you need to change your way of thinking. Roger changes things. Wherever he shows up on the net, the parade of societal misfits is not far behind him. If you want a near perfect model of how to deal with the fruits & nuts here, you have no furter to look than Dave Heil. Anyone who is a regular reader here knows the depraved filth that Roger has hurled at Dave Heil & his xyl. Watch how Dave responds, that is when he choses to respond to Roger. Better yet, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and turn off rrap. No one should let the crap here get to you, especially vanilla comments like "who cares." You must have an awful thin skin Paul. Paul does. :-) On the other hand, he has stated that he "enjoys" what goes on in here. shrug One can also (if they have a strong stomach) read the filthy blitherings of the USMC Imposter Steven James Robeson towards just about anyone in here over several years. Since when is politely stating an obvious, face-value, and factual rebuttal considered having an "awful thin skin?" I had an opinion on the subject, intended mostly as an amplification of N2EY's comments, and chose to express it. Addressing my comments to a wider audience, not just the trolls, seemed appropriate. That is remarkable naivete! Mere words will not - repeat NOT - affect these trolls and anony-mousies one bit. As long as they can (clearly) get away with it, they will. QED for several years in here. You should KNOW that by now. I take the subjects of amateur radio and amateur radio policy seriously. The fact that others do not should not be viewed as a poor reflection on me. It's a plain and simple fact that this newsgroup has long since fallen in a sewer of filthy sayings by trolls, mis- fits, anonymous cowards, and -horrors- identifiable amateur radio callsign-holding "men!" Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness. "Arbitrary standard of righteousness?!?" Filth, hate, anger are "righteous?!?" The newsgroup has turned into a Din of Inequity. We know it. Everyone seems to know it. But Paul Schleck doesn't seem to know that. I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a clone of Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum. Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a poor choice of words... Nor does he need to be a clone of me. Now THAT is ripe for discussion! [but, I digress...] Paul, face the cold, hard, cruel facts. This newsgroup has lost its purpose and meaning. Years ago. It's time to face the facts that it needs to be dissolved. Or perhaps to be shut down for an indefinite period. |
Gerritsen Sentenced
Paul W. Schleck wrote:
With respect to the previous question about "Who cares?" I, and many others, care about protecting public resources like radio spectrum. I, and many others, are greatly concerned that public safety officials and auxiliary volunteers are able to do their jobs, and make use of vital tools like communications equipment, without interference. I'm one of those concerned others. The individual being sentenced was a persistent, serious, repeat offender who targeted both amateur and professional radio frequencies, likely with a drug or alcohol problem considering the judge's order for him to enter rehab. Taking a radio microphone out of his hands for at least another 7 years should be good news to any serious, law-abiding, radio amateur, as well as any other concerned citizen. To me it's a mixed bag... It's definitely good news that such an offender has been taken off the air and received serious penalties. But it's less-than-good news that it took so long for it to happen. The deliberate and malicious interference to amateurs was going on for *years*, and was extensively documented and reported. The interference to other radio services was, IMO, the last straw - but even those incidents weren't recent. Perhaps the FCC and law enforcement proceeded as slowly and carefully as they did in order to build an absolutely air-tight case, with stiff penalties and a clear precedent. I hope that is the case. It's also less-than-good news that the offender was a licensed radio amateur. While *we* all know that he's a rare case, and that the efforts of other radio amateurs were a big part of getting him convicted, the general image to the public may be less clear. We need good publicity for amateur radio, not 'Radio Ham Runs Amok On The Air, Interferes With Army and Police' headlines. (not an actual headline, but you see the point). How do we deal with similar cases in the future? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
gay bashers are not welcome anywhere that is why they use fake names like Slow Code
an_old_friendless faggot wrote: Slow Code wrote: gay bashers are not welcome anywhere that is why they use fake names like Slow Code **** off, faggot! Marky confirms he married a shemale in .com: "posted you can prove it for yourself anytime you can catch him at home" Mark Morgan replied "yes I did. your point?" when confessing publicly to having been sodomized in . com. |
Gerritsen Sentenced
Ham radio operators fancy themselves as playing some
important role in some undefined national picture...... get real, ham radio is waaaaaaay past its prime, and its ranks consist of heavy-set old white men who dream of yesteryear. Haaaayooooo Silver....awaaaaay Tonto......the Lone Ranger rides again.......straight out of the 50s, when ham radio was on the cutting edge. LOL |
Gerritsen Sentenced
In . com " writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Wed, Sep 20 2006 3:14 pm In "Herb" writes: The sociopaths have run rrap, starting when Roger showed up. If you take anything serious here, you need to change your way of thinking. Roger changes things. Wherever he shows up on the net, the parade of societal misfits is not far behind him. If you want a near perfect model of how to deal with the fruits & nuts here, you have no furter to look than Dave Heil. Anyone who is a regular reader here knows the depraved filth that Roger has hurled at Dave Heil & his xyl. Watch how Dave responds, that is when he choses to respond to Roger. Better yet, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and turn off rrap. No one should let the crap here get to you, especially vanilla comments like "who cares." You must have an awful thin skin Paul. Paul does. :-) On the other hand, he has stated that he "enjoys" what goes on in here. shrug You're really torturing my words into a misquote here. What I said to you in private E-mail (circa-2004) was something to the effect of the newsgroups are more enjoyable when there is a fair and respectful exchange of ideas. So, could I "enjoy" this forum? Yes, but not in its present state. My exact message is archived off to backups. I can find it and post it here if you want, otherwise feel free to post your copy of my E-mail. One can also (if they have a strong stomach) read the filthy blitherings of the USMC Imposter Steven James Robeson towards just about anyone in here over several years. I'm not Steve Robeson. I'm happy to clarify that for you. Since when is politely stating an obvious, face-value, and factual rebuttal considered having an "awful thin skin?" I had an opinion on the subject, intended mostly as an amplification of N2EY's comments, and chose to express it. Addressing my comments to a wider audience, not just the trolls, seemed appropriate. That is remarkable naivete! Mere words will not - repeat NOT - affect these trolls and anony-mousies one bit. As long as they can (clearly) get away with it, they will. QED for several years in here. You should KNOW that by now. As I noted in my previous followup, I was speaking to a wider audience, some of whom expressed their agreement with me in further followups. If words are useless in this forum, why do you continue to contribute many, many such words? I take the subjects of amateur radio and amateur radio policy seriously. The fact that others do not should not be viewed as a poor reflection on me. It's a plain and simple fact that this newsgroup has long since fallen in a sewer of filthy sayings by trolls, mis- fits, anonymous cowards, and -horrors- identifiable amateur radio callsign-holding "men!" Not that you would ever stereotype, or overgeneralize the actions of a few (and it truly is a very few) to a much larger population. Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness. "Arbitrary standard of righteousness?!?" Filth, hate, anger are "righteous?!?" The newsgroup has turned into a Din of Inequity. We know it. Everyone seems to know it. But Paul Schleck doesn't seem to know that. I was referring to Herb's admonishment that if I can't follow some sort of strict protocol like that allegedly practiced by Dave Heil, then I should just remain silent. I found his "standards of newsgroup righteousness" to be arbitrary, and said so. Since Dave Heil has now followed up to state that he agrees with me, this further suggests that Herb was talking through his hat. Under what other circumstances do you feel that I have failed to grasp that we have problem users, trolls, etc., on this newsgroup? Please be specific. I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a clone of Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum. Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a poor choice of words... Actually, I believe both the late Senator and I were borrowing from the rich heritage of the English language, including using iambic pacing and short declarative sentences to build to a climactic finish, a technique dating at least back to Shakespeare (e.g., "Friends! Romans! Countrymen!" etc.). Nevertheless, if you feel that I owe some credit to the Senator for my wording above, I don't think it's fair to conclude that he was unsuccessful, and thus not worth paraphrasing, because he ran in an election that was substantially not his to lose (Hint: It was arguably more the responsibility of the individual at the *top* of the ticket.) Many would credit his statement as underscoring a specific perceived weakness in the opposing ticket, one that arguably was successfully exploited in his party's 1992 victory. In addition to serving 4 terms as Senator, including re-election to the office at the same time his running-mate for the *other* election lost, his nomination to be Secretary of the Treasury was voted out of the confirmation committee by acclimation (and standing applause). After his death, following a long life and career, no one seems to have anything bad to say about him. Except, apparently, you. Nor does he need to be a clone of me. Now THAT is ripe for discussion! [but, I digress...] Paul, face the cold, hard, cruel facts. This newsgroup has lost its purpose and meaning. Years ago. It's time to face the facts that it needs to be dissolved. Or perhaps to be shut down for an indefinite period. For such a meaningless forum, where words have no effect, you have an awful lot of words, and time to create those words. I've asked this before, and will do so again now. What is the end-goal of your continuing participation here? Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better (read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an announcement sometime this fall. -- Paul W. Schleck, K3FU http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ Finger for PGP Public Key |
gay bashers are not welcome anywhere that is why they use fake names like Slow Code
Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote: gay bashers are not welcome anywhere that is why they use fake names like Slow Code |
Gerritsen Sentenced
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes: Paul does. :-) On the other hand, he has stated that he "enjoys" what goes on in here. shrug You're really torturing my words into a misquote here. "Torture?" :-) [no innocent words were harmed in writing...] What I said to you in private E-mail (circa-2004) was something to the effect of the newsgroups are more enjoyable when there is a fair and respectful exchange of ideas. So, could I "enjoy" this forum? Yes, but not in its present state. So, how are my words (quoted above) "torture?" You are imagining things which aren't there. Turn your Personal Sensitivity control fully CCW, please. My exact message is archived off to backups. I can find it and post it here if you want, otherwise feel free to post your copy of my E-mail. Not necessary. :-) You are not the "prosecution" nor am I the "defense" (or vice-versa) and this is not a court of law...at least not in the modern sense. :-) One can also (if they have a strong stomach) read the filthy blitherings of the USMC Imposter Steven James Robeson towards just about anyone in here over several years. I'm not Steve Robeson. I'm happy to clarify that for you. I am happy that you are happy. I am NOT happy that some are acting as military veteran imposters. Extremely few REAL veterans are happy about imposters. Mere words will not - repeat NOT - affect these trolls and anony-mousies one bit. As long as they can (clearly) get away with it, they will. QED for several years in here. You should KNOW that by now. As I noted in my previous followup, I was speaking to a wider audience, some of whom expressed their agreement with me in further followups. What "wider audience?" Is this a broadcast to many newsgroups? If words are useless in this forum, why do you continue to contribute many, many such words? Because I can! :-) Outside of FCC Comments and Petitions, there are very few UNBIASED venues for speaking one's mind on any amateur radio policy issues. I take the subjects of amateur radio and amateur radio policy seriously. The fact that others do not should not be viewed as a poor reflection on me. It's a plain and simple fact that this newsgroup has long since fallen in a sewer of filthy sayings by trolls, mis- fits, anonymous cowards, and -horrors- identifiable amateur radio callsign-holding "men!" Not that you would ever stereotype, or overgeneralize the actions of a few (and it truly is a very few) to a much larger population. I do not have to "stereotype, or overgeneralize" anything by such individuals (trolls, misfits, anonymous cowards, and identifiable amateur radio callsign-holding "men"). THEY mark themselves. Yes, there are only a very few "representatives" of a "much larger population" (of radio amateurs) in here. But, those that do put themselves on public view do not always reflect well on a pleasureable radio activity hobby enjoyed by thousands. Rather they reflect mostly personal preferrences within their hobby. "Objective" applies to little of what is written. Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness. "Arbitrary standard of righteousness?!?" Filth, hate, anger are "righteous?!?" The newsgroup has turned into a Din of Inequity. We know it. Everyone seems to know it. But Paul Schleck doesn't seem to know that. I was referring to Herb's admonishment that if I can't follow some sort of strict protocol like that allegedly practiced by Dave Heil, then I should just remain silent. I found his "standards of newsgroup righteousness" to be arbitrary, and said so. Whose? Try to be clear on which person you are referring to. Since Dave Heil has now followed up to state that he agrees with me, this further suggests that Herb was talking through his hat. Heil's subsequent postings are not what he "agreed to" so that indicates a lot of this "talking through the hat." I do not use hats. Under what other circumstances do you feel that I have failed to grasp that we have problem users, trolls, etc., on this newsgroup? Please be specific. How can one be "specific" on NO ACTION? Acting as the Mother Superior in a parochial school is NOT "action." It is stupid self-aggrandizement. I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a clone of Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum. Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a poor choice of words... Actually, I believe both the late Senator and I were borrowing from the rich heritage of the English language, including using iambic pacing and short declarative sentences to build to a climactic finish, a technique dating at least back to Shakespeare (e.g., "Friends! Romans! Countrymen!" etc.). Nice rationalization. Just the same, Senator Lloyd Bentsen lost that 1988 election to Senator Dan Quayle. Bentsen's words became a catch-phrase in contemporary American language after that famous debate. It was in all the newspapers. ... After his death, following a long life and career, no one seems to have anything bad to say about him. Except, apparently, you. I said nothing deragatory about late Senator Bentsen. What I remarked on was YOUR choice of words, Paul. I can truthfully say that I never knew John Kennedy. I respected John Kennedy. I did not need to be a political candidate to go out and help with John Kennedy's election. That was 28 years before the Bentsen-Quayle TV debates. Now that has little to do with the subject at hand, just as a quick biography of Lloyd Bentsen that you thought necessary has nothing to do with YOUR words here. [it is not Shakespeare but then such is not found in here...nor is it necessary] For such a meaningless forum, where words have no effect, you have an awful lot of words, and time to create those words. I've asked this before, and will do so again now. What is the end-goal of your continuing participation here? It is as I've stated many years ago, "to advocate the elimination of the manual morse code test in US amateur radio licensing. When that elimination happens, I will leave this newsgroup." Does that satisfy your honor? [your majesty? your worship?] Many, many, far too many words have been written by others in trying to ascribe ulterior motives to my posting in here. All of those other attributed "motives" were simply false. Are you going to believe my words or the words of others on my "motives?" I think it is a safe bet that you will believe only those others. What is the "end-goal" of YOUR 'continuing' (sparse, random) participation in here? Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better (read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an announcement sometime this fall. I'm sure we will all look forward to an OBJECTIVELY moderated newsgroup. Whether or not such OBJECTIVITY occurs is another matter. It is a safe bet that such "moderation" will be as subjective as all the olde-tyme morsemen can wish for. Beep, beep, |
Gerritsen Sentenced
"Paul W. Schleck" wrote in message //drivel flushed// Cutting out all your bullcrap, Schleck, here's the bottom line, you used to send out your infamous "welcome letters," which made you feel *In Charge* You are a control freak, and your ego was bruised badly.....no more "welcome letters." Get a grip Paul, move on. Your "moderated group"? I will believe it when I see it.....history is against you. |
Gerritsen Sentenced
wrote: From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better (read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an announcement sometime this fall. I'm sure we will all look forward to an OBJECTIVELY moderated newsgroup. Whether or not such OBJECTIVITY occurs is another matter. It is a safe bet that such "moderation" will be as subjective as all the olde-tyme morsemen can wish for. I suspect it will be better than that after all Paul does know he can't behead those that disagree, and that is clearly the wish of most of MMM Beep, beep, |
Gerritsen Sentenced
an_old_friend wrote: wrote: From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better (read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an announcement sometime this fall. I'm sure we will all look forward to an OBJECTIVELY moderated newsgroup. Whether or not such OBJECTIVITY occurs is another matter. It is a safe bet that such "moderation" will be as subjective as all the olde-tyme morsemen can wish for. I suspect it will be better than that after all Paul does know he can't behead those that disagree, and that is clearly the wish of most of MMM "Beheading?" Hardly. Perhaps doing-in some no-code-test advocate as was done to William Wallace of Scotland long ago: "Quartering" with all parts buried in different locations. :-) It will probably be a la the ARRL "sinning by omission." A simple deletion and ignoring of any non-MMM poster. That way only ONE way or viewpoint is visible to the public. The public will then assume that the MMM view prevails. No problem... The FCC regulates US amateur radio, not the "participants" in it. Some "participants" think they rule, but they don't. "Give a ham an inch and they think they are rulers!" :-) Beep, beep, |
gay bashers are not welcome anywhere that is why they use fake names like Slow Code
an_old_friendless kiddie diddler wrote: Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote: gay bashers are not welcome anywhere Neither are perverted pedophiles like you! |
Gerritsen Sentenced
Slow Code wrote: Paul W. Schleck wrote in : In writes: On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:21:01 -0400, "nwx" wrote: wrote in message groups.com... Seven years in prison, plus fines. WHO CARES? beside you. well while it is off topic it is less off topi c than 90 percent of the posting lately http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ Since when is discussion of amateur radio rules and regulations, including enforcement actions, considered off-topic for this newsgroup? Paul, Ignore Mark Morgan, he ain't playing with a full deck. PKB, Toad. It's not off-topic for any radio group. I'm hoping to make this group respectable again, and you can help. If K3LT would would come back and other past RRAP CW supporters, we can kick out the anti-CW Homophiles like Woger, Hey Stupid, Roger is pro-CW. He pased 13 wpm code to get his General! Mark & Lloyd, and make this group respectable again. I'd even get rid of SC and start using my callsign here again once the trash is taken out. Toad, you spam right along with Marqueer! |
Gerritsen Sentenced
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:00:25 -0400, Jack wrote: "Paul W. Schleck" wrote in message //drivel flushed// Cutting out all your bullcrap, Schleck, here's the bottom line, you used to send out your infamous "welcome letters," which made you feel *In Charge* You are a control freak, and your ego was bruised badly.....no more "welcome letters." Get a grip Paul, move on. Your "moderated group"? I will believe it when I see it.....history is against you. You are one of the reasons we are working on a moderaded news group. Posters like you will not be allowed to post in the new group unless you show some civility in your posts. The new Big 8 procedures will allow us to create a moderated news group within a matter of days after we decide to do it. Look for rec.radio.amateur.policy.moderated to appear during November of this year, and eat your mother ****ing heart out because you won't be able to goddamn post. Neener, neener, neener, Jackie-baby. I will be in control, and you can go pound salt. |
Forgery
Nice try, but you will have to come up with a much better
*FORGERY* of Paul. In Schleck's defense shudder he comports himself in a rational adult manner. Jack "Paul W Schleck" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:00:25 -0400, Jack wrote: "Paul W. Schleck" wrote in message //drivel flushed// Cutting out all your bullcrap, Schleck, here's the bottom line, you used to send out your infamous "welcome letters," which made you feel *In Charge* You are a control freak, and your ego was bruised badly.....no more "welcome letters." Get a grip Paul, move on. Your "moderated group"? I will believe it when I see it.....history is against you. You are one of the reasons we are working on a moderaded news group. Posters like you will not be allowed to post in the new group unless you show some civility in your posts. The new Big 8 procedures will allow us to create a moderated news group within a matter of days after we decide to do it. Look for rec.radio.amateur.policy.moderated to appear during November of this year, and eat your mother ****ing heart out because you won't be able to goddamn post. Neener, neener, neener, Jackie-baby. I will be in control, and you can go pound salt. |
Gerritsen Sentenced
In . com " writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm writes: Paul does. :-) On the other hand, he has stated that he "enjoys" what goes on in here. shrug You're really torturing my words into a misquote here. "Torture?" :-) [no innocent words were harmed in writing...] What I said to you in private E-mail (circa-2004) was something to the effect of the newsgroups are more enjoyable when there is a fair and respectful exchange of ideas. So, could I "enjoy" this forum? Yes, but not in its present state. So, how are my words (quoted above) "torture?" "Torturing my words" is a turn of phrase that says that you have twisted my words' meaning or context, specifically the context in which I might have used the word "enjoy." I never stated that I "enjoy" the negative behavior that presently goes on in here, nor used synonymous phrasing (see below). You're stating a falsehood that you are unwilling to retract, even in the face of available, contrary evidence. Is that clear enough? You are imagining things which aren't there. Turn your Personal Sensitivity control fully CCW, please. My exact message is archived off to backups. I can find it and post it here if you want, otherwise feel free to post your copy of my E-mail. Not necessary. :-) You are not the "prosecution" nor am I the "defense" (or vice-versa) and this is not a court of law...at least not in the modern sense. :-) You're clearly wanting to argue it both ways. You want to make unproven assertions, then if the accused want to defend themselves and offer convincing evidence in their defense, you want to admonish them for not understanding that "this is not a court of law." Rather, it seems to be one where the only acceptable evidence in Len's mind is that which advances Len's arguments. I have since found the specific E-mail message to you, dated January 23 2004, that supports my denial. Do you object to me putting it up temporarily off of my home page, and posting a link here? Mere words will not - repeat NOT - affect these trolls and anony-mousies one bit. As long as they can (clearly) get away with it, they will. QED for several years in here. You should KNOW that by now. As I noted in my previous followup, I was speaking to a wider audience, some of whom expressed their agreement with me in further followups. What "wider audience?" Is this a broadcast to many newsgroups? I was referring to individuals like K8MN, N2EY, and "Old Friend" who have followed up in this thread. A wider audience than just the trolls and problem users. If words are useless in this forum, why do you continue to contribute many, many such words? Because I can! :-) I guess I can't argue with that. I can't make sense of it, but I can't argue with it. Outside of FCC Comments and Petitions, there are very few UNBIASED venues for speaking one's mind on any amateur radio policy issues. Well, at least you're willing to admit that the FCC Comments and Petitions process is unbiased to submitters. We have/had some on this newsgroup that weren't even willing to admit that. Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness. "Arbitrary standard of righteousness?!?" Filth, hate, anger are "righteous?!?" The newsgroup has turned into a Din of Inequity. We know it. Everyone seems to know it. But Paul Schleck doesn't seem to know that. I was referring to Herb's admonishment that if I can't follow some sort of strict protocol like that allegedly practiced by Dave Heil, then I should just remain silent. I found his "standards of newsgroup righteousness" to be arbitrary, and said so. Whose? Try to be clear on which person you are referring to. I found *Herb's* "standards of newsgroup righteousness" to be arbitrary, and said so. Since Dave Heil has now followed up to state that he agrees with me, this further suggests that Herb was talking through his hat. Heil's subsequent postings are not what he "agreed to" so that indicates a lot of this "talking through the hat." I do not use hats. Dave Heil is free to chime in again if he feels that I have misquoted him by my assertion that he agrees with me that Herb was being disingenuous, and that Herb was not speaking for him. Under what other circumstances do you feel that I have failed to grasp that we have problem users, trolls, etc., on this newsgroup? Please be specific. How can one be "specific" on NO ACTION? Acting as the Mother Superior in a parochial school is NOT "action." It is stupid self-aggrandizement. How about this, Len: I acknowledge that we have problem users, trolls, etc. on this newsgroup. I will consult, on an ongoing basis, with newsgroup participants for *specific* recommendations for actions, such that I am not contributing to this problem through my inaction. Would that satisfy you? I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a clone of Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum. Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a poor choice of words... Actually, I believe both the late Senator and I were borrowing from the rich heritage of the English language, including using iambic pacing and short declarative sentences to build to a climactic finish, a technique dating at least back to Shakespeare (e.g., "Friends! Romans! Countrymen!" etc.). Nice rationalization. Just the same, Senator Lloyd Bentsen lost that 1988 election to Senator Dan Quayle. Bentsen's words became a catch-phrase in contemporary American language after that famous debate. It was in all the newspapers. ... After his death, following a long life and career, no one seems to have anything bad to say about him. Except, apparently, you. I said nothing deragatory about late Senator Bentsen. What I remarked on was YOUR choice of words, Paul. I can truthfully say that I never knew John Kennedy. I respected John Kennedy. I did not need to be a political candidate to go out and help with John Kennedy's election. That was 28 years before the Bentsen-Quayle TV debates. Now that has little to do with the subject at hand, just as a quick biography of Lloyd Bentsen that you thought necessary has nothing to do with YOUR words here. [it is not Shakespeare but then such is not found in here...nor is it necessary] Let's recap: Paul: "I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a clone of Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum." Len: "Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a poor choice of words..." Why mention that the Senator "lost an election" if it doesn't attempt to advance any argument other than an undermining of my words and his? Why dig up the bones of a dead man just to have something to throw at me? Which is the greater "Tsk"-able offense in your mind? That I've allegedly cribbed from someone? Or that I've allegedly paraphrased a quote from a context where the person stating it was not successful in his goals? You made your argument above appear stronger by conveniently deleting the quoted paragraphs in your latest followup where I do acknowledge multiple possible credits for my wording, and where I also argue that the Senator's quote helped win the 1992 election. It's reasonable to argue that pacing of short, declarative sentences to build to a conclusion is a common technique that both the Senator and I were using, and both owe our thanks to a rich and common language heritage that existed well before our times. If I wanted to crib the Senator's words, I may as well have copied them exactly: "Herb, I served with Dave Heil, I knew Dave Heil, Dave Heil was a friend of mine. Herb, you are no Dave Heil." but that would have been a very different quote, now wouldn't it? Shakespeare is useful to mention here because he is viewed as one of the first writers to really wield modern English deftly, including its iambic pacing for dramatic effect, and leave a surviving record of his writing. Even centuries later, we can all learn from his example. For such a meaningless forum, where words have no effect, you have an awful lot of words, and time to create those words. I've asked this before, and will do so again now. What is the end-goal of your continuing participation here? It is as I've stated many years ago, "to advocate the elimination of the manual morse code test in US amateur radio licensing. When that elimination happens, I will leave this newsgroup." Does that satisfy your honor? [your majesty? your worship?] Many, many, far too many words have been written by others in trying to ascribe ulterior motives to my posting in here. All of those other attributed "motives" were simply false. Are you going to believe my words or the words of others on my "motives?" I think it is a safe bet that you will believe only those others. What is the "end-goal" of YOUR 'continuing' (sparse, random) participation in here? Among other issues, "to advocate the elimination of the manual morse code test in US amateur radio licensing." Since your stated goal above is also one of mine, why are there arguments, attacks, etc., directed by you against me? Do you feel that only you are capable of properly advancing these arguments in this forum, and no one else? Do you still not "give a flying fig" about others' positions, even when they agree with yours? That's solipsism. Here's a challenge to you, Len. I respectfully request that you publicly make the following, objectively true, statement: "Paul and I share a common goal to advocate the elimination of the manual morse code test in US amateur radio licensing." If you don't like the exact wording, feel free to come up with some of your own. Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better (read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an announcement sometime this fall. I'm sure we will all look forward to an OBJECTIVELY moderated newsgroup. Whether or not such OBJECTIVITY occurs is another matter. It is a safe bet that such "moderation" will be as subjective as all the olde-tyme morsemen can wish for. 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. However, other moderated newsgroups that are considered successful usually consider the following behavior to be grounds for a temporary or permanent ban: - Provocation/Prevarication - Arguing against those that agree with you (i.e., arguing for the sake of arguing)/Filibustering/"Grease" (extending debate by avoiding direct rejoinder) - Name-calling/uncivil tone/disrespect for newsgroup participants - Trying to argue both ways/applying different standards of evidence to yourself versus others - Trying to justify the above behavior with, "But *he* started it!" In particular, I don't think there's a moderator of *any* existing newsgroup that would accept the last argument as justification. Beep, beep, -- Paul W. Schleck, K3FU http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ Finger for PGP Public Key |
Gerritsen Sentenced
Paul W. Schleck wrote:
I acknowledge that we have problem users, trolls, etc. on this newsgroup. I will consult, on an ongoing basis, with newsgroup participants for *specific* recommendations for actions, such that I am not contributing to this problem through my inaction. Here's an idea that I have seen work: email reflectors with a moderator. Anyone interested can sign up to the reflector - but they have to give a real email address and identity to the moderator/list coordinator. No anonymous stuff. The moderators don't read and approve each and every email before it is reflected. But if someone steps too far out of the reflector guidelines, or goes too far off topic, they're warned. If they do it too many times they are simply banned from the reflector. Which happens very rarely. That system works very well. Disagreements abound, yet are handled with civility. And a lot of good information and discussion results. The whole thing is simple and straightforward, and works for anyone who has email. Why all the complexity of a moderated newsgroup if it can be done by email? What are the advantages of usenet over a reflector? -- And to get back on topic: 1) I think it would be useful to the amateur radio community for us to know the involvement of local amateurs in bringing Gerritsen to justice. IOW, what worked and what didn't, what hams can do and what they should not do in such cases, etc. 2) "Amateur Radio Policy" goes far beyond the Morse Code test issue. Sooner or later, the FCC will announce what it will do wrt the recent NPRM. IMHO, FCC may do the following: A) Increase code testing (chances of that are infinitesimal) B) Leave the present requirement unchanged (possible but unlikely) C) Eliminate code test for General but keep it for Extra (majority of commenters want this, but it's not very likely) D) Combine code and written testing in such a way that the code test still exists, but there are other testing options, so that the Morse Code test is no longer an absolute, no-other-option requirement for any class of amateur license. This has been done in Canada and was suggested in my comments. (Possible) E) Completely eliminate Morse Code testing. (Most likely) If the FCC does A, B or C, the Morse Code test debates will probably continue. But if FCC does D or E, what policy issues should be on the table next? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Gerritsen Sentenced
From: "Paul W Schleck" on Fri, Sep 22 2006 3:21 pm
Email: (Paul W Schleck) Groups: rec.radio.amateur.policy Note the " email location indicating this may be a forgery of Paul Schleck's email address which is ". If it IS a forgery, then the Google newsgroup procedures need some serious surgery and repair. If it is NOT a forgery, then there is even more serious surgery needed to remove cancers like the following: The new Big 8 procedures will allow us to create a moderated news group within a matter of days after we decide to do it. Look for rec.radio.amateur.policy.moderated to appear during November of this year, and eat your mother ****ing heart out because you won't be able to goddamn post. Neener, neener, neener, Jackie-baby. I will be in control, and you can go pound salt. QED. |
Gerritsen Sentenced
From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
writes: From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm writes: "Torturing my words" is a turn of phrase that says that you have twisted my words' meaning or context, specifically the context in which I might have used the word "enjoy." "Might have used?" :-) How "might" you have used it? I don't live in alternate space-time continuums nor can I read minds of others. I never stated that I "enjoy" the negative behavior that presently goes on in here, nor used synonymous phrasing (see below). Tsk. "Synonymous phrasing?" :-) You're stating a falsehood that you are unwilling to retract, even in the face of available, contrary evidence. Is that clear enough? Am I to expect Federal Marshalls at my door to "pick me up" any minute? :-) Paul, all I did was write some words in here...in the same context as some amateur morsemen love to do...and then you take that as "a falsehood that you are unwilling to retract"! Your buttons got pushed. And your "arming switch" was set to "FIRE!" rather than "Safe." :-) You're clearly wanting to argue it both ways. You want to make unproven assertions, then if the accused want to defend themselves and offer convincing evidence in their defense, you want to admonish them for not understanding that "this is not a court of law." This newsgroup is NOT a court of law. Really. I have since found the specific E-mail message to you, dated January 23 2004, that supports my denial. Do you object to me putting it up temporarily off of my home page, and posting a link here? I have no objections. You are welcome to copy Robeson's short-lived home page of "Never Trust Lennie" if you are so disturbed by things in here. :-) [I don't have a copy. Too bad. It was a classic of libel and outrage by one who could not control himself in here] I can't possibly control the actions of a licensed extra class radio amateur (20 WPM code test kind), can I? After all, those licensed extra class radio amateurs who are "participants" in here can't control the trolls, anony-mousies, sociopaths, and others (too strange to classify) who post in here. You expect ME to "control them?" :-) I was referring to individuals like K8MN, N2EY, and "Old Friend" who have followed up in this thread. A wider audience than just the trolls and problem users. Small Freudian slip there. "Individuals" who you think are surnamed by call letters are rather blatant pro-morse-code- test fanatics. The "Old Friend" is also a licensed US radio amateur but you fail to note his call and name. Mark Morgan is a no-code-test advocate. See the relationship? The probable (note supposition, not fact) "moderation" to be seems evident. If words are useless in this forum, why do you continue to contribute many, many such words? Because I can! :-) I guess I can't argue with that. Right! Now you are beginning to see the problem! :-) This newsgroup has been out of control for a long time. Anyone can post anything, including someone who forges your name ". That's the reason that I recommend Total Dissolution of this newsgroup. Elimination. For an indefinite period of time. I can't make sense of it, but I can't argue with it. Then you would be a poor choice for moderator. I've had experience as a BBS public board moderator for several years. It takes "brass ones" to be polite to everyone but its the only way to do effective moderation. You CANNOT be a participant in ANY argumentative subject in such an environment. That would be subjective bias. Such as what you want to do in here... Outside of FCC Comments and Petitions, there are very few UNBIASED venues for speaking one's mind on any amateur radio policy issues. Well, at least you're willing to admit that the FCC Comments and Petitions process is unbiased to submitters. "Admit?!?" [bad choice of a word, Paul] I have STATED what I wrote before. The FCC has stated that. The Communications Act of 1934 that established the FCC must accept commentary from all citizens on radio regulations, ALL radio regulations. It is STATED in law. We have/had some on this newsgroup that weren't even willing to admit that. NOT my problem, NOT my words you talk about. "You want to make unproven assertions, then if the accused want to defend themselves and ..." Do not blame me for "others words." I found *Herb's* "standards of newsgroup righteousness" to be arbitrary, and said so. So noted. Now what, another knock on the door by "officials" for partially agreeing with him? Dave Heil is free to chime in again if he feels that I have misquoted him by my assertion that he agrees with me that Herb was being disingenuous, and that Herb was not speaking for him. Heil frequently "chimes in" about others and others' words, even taking it upon himself to "answer" replies made to another. He does this mostly to no-code-test advocates who are replying to amateur extra morsemen. Google is full of his posts in that manner. QED. ["Chimes?" A whole table full of ringing bells manned by morsemen ringers...and ding-alingers] I acknowledge that we have problem users, trolls, etc. on this newsgroup. I will consult, on an ongoing basis, with newsgroup participants for *specific* recommendations for actions, such that I am not contributing to this problem through my inaction. As I said before this post and in this post, I recommend Total Dissolution of this newsgroup. For an indefinite time period. [can't get any more "specific" than that] This newsgroup does not serve its original purpose, that of arguing the morse code test retention or elimination in US amateur radio regulations. It has become a sewer of filthy outpourings from trolls, sociopaths, misfits, some of whom are identifiable as having amateur radio licenses...very few engaging in an approximation of "debate." It is a travesty of its intended purpose. Would that satisfy you? Why do you ask? I am a no-code-test advocate. My FCC license is a Commercial one. I don't parrot ARRL maxims. I am merely a US citizen, one who has made a career in electronics-radio, and served his country honorably in the US military. Why ask ME? I'm not a "participant" in licensed amateur radio...the kind where all the licensees think they "run" it. I'm not one to slavishly hold to old standards and practices in amateurism when they are out of date. I don't need the emotional sustenance of rank-status-title for "privileges" that were lobbied for by older rank-status-title amateurs. If you need to ASK someone, look to the public, to those who WILL inherit the future involving radio. They will outlive the rest of us. Will those of the near-future look on US amateur radio as a quaint anachronism of ancient times if it is frozen in place? I am willing to bet they will but I'm hopeful to be proven wrong on that statement. Only time will tell... Life Member, IEEE (a professional association with 397 thousand members worldwide) |
Gerritsen Sentenced
As is typical, Len says in fifteen paragraphs that which could be easily
stated in one sentence. Brevity is NOT one of Len's strong points. Prattle on, Len. Thank you for the left eye wink humor. |
Gerritsen Sentenced
wrote: Seven years in prison, plus fines. http://www.qrz.com (top two stories) More detail at: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/19/100/?nc=1 And on my birthday! Happy Happy BD to me! Why does Morkie keep insisting that I am "lying" when all I am doing is quoting HIM verbatim? I'm not. Here's YOUR words AGAIN, Morkie: Message-ID: .com KB9RQZ Said: "oh learning code is easy" There you have it, folks! Morkie says learning code is easy! Quoted Word For Word! Steve, K4YZ |
Gerritsen Sentenced
From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
Email: Paul W. Schleck writes: From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm writes: Let's recap: Why? :-) Paul: "I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a clone of Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum." Len: "Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a poor choice of words..." Why mention that the Senator "lost an election" if it doesn't attempt to advance any argument other than an undermining of my words and his? Why dig up the bones of a dead man just to have something to throw at me? Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur radio license? :-) Which is the greater "Tsk"-able offense in your mind? That I've allegedly cribbed from someone? Or that I've allegedly paraphrased a quote from a context where the person stating it was not successful in his goals? You are building a Mount Everest out of an anthill. :-) Try to remember that ANY public posting in any computer- modem venue, from early BBS to the Internet, is OPEN for "commentary" by ANYONE. If you take offense at every negative comment that you perceive is directed at you, you are already in trouble. But, that trouble is only yours, your perception. ["Been there, done that," got lots of moderator T-shirts] You made your argument above appear stronger by conveniently deleting the quoted paragraphs in your latest followup where I do acknowledge multiple possible credits for my wording, and where I also argue that the Senator's quote helped win the 1992 election. This newsgroup is not a national political election forum. Really. It's reasonable to argue that pacing of short, declarative sentences to build to a conclusion is a common technique that both the Senator and I were using, and both owe our thanks to a rich and common language heritage that existed well before our times. Try to concentrate on amateur radio policy matters in this newsgroup. If you want to do Literary Review things, I'm sure there is some kind of newsgroup for that somewhere. This newsgroup is not a debate forum for national politics of the USA of the past millennium. Really. Shakespeare is useful to mention here because he is viewed as one of the first writers to really wield modern English deftly, including its iambic pacing for dramatic effect, and leave a surviving record of his writing. Even centuries later, we can all learn from his example. Should I bring that up at the next Writer's Guild meeting in North Hollywood? How about the ABA in NYC? :-) If you wish to admonish someone on use of the English language a la the academia way, try hundreds of postings by OTHERS in this newsgroup for the past week. :-) Oh, and in passing, academia itself is divided on this Shakespeare thing, especially on so few (read almost none) original manuscripts surviving and scant factual information about his life. BTASE, carry on with what you want to discuss in a Literary Review forum someplace else. What is the "end-goal" of YOUR 'continuing' (sparse, random) participation in here? Among other issues, "to advocate the elimination of the manual morse code test in US amateur radio licensing." Since your stated goal above is also one of mine, why are there arguments, attacks, etc., directed by you against me? Please, turn DOWN your Personal Sensitivity control. If you continue with it fully clockwise, your life as a moderator will be very short indeed. Moderators need armor-plated stainless steel cojones on the job, plus emotional shielding to protect their sense of self. Do you feel that only you are capable of properly advancing these arguments in this forum, and no one else? Tsk, I state my opinions directly. If those collide with others, then they collide. TS. I will also make commentary about things and persons as I would do in person. No formality is required, although the self-righteous in here seem to think that de rigeur. [i.e., "the court of law" syndrome of the overly sensitive to any negative against Theirs...:-) ] Do you still not "give a flying fig" about others' positions, even when they agree with yours? Yes. "Carbon copies" of what Others say aren't required. That's solipsism. No, that's just the way computer-modem communications work in public access. It was that way when ARPANET got big, it was that way when it morphed into USENET, and was that way when it was picked up on BBS networks. And it remains that way on the Internet in those forums called "Usenet." shrug You have to realize that not all people agree on things. Really. That's what makes us all unique...with some possible exceptions of certain membership organizations in the NE USA...but that is more religion than anything else. :-) Here's a challenge to you, Len. I've had thousands of "challenges" in my time. I do not need any from anyone in this group. Remember what happended to STS 51J? I respectfully request that you publicly make the following, objectively true, statement: I decline. There is little proof available of this alleged "objectiveness." :-) If you don't like the exact wording, feel free to come up with some of your own. Thank you ever so much, your worship. ["highness?"] Condescenion does not become you. Oh, I feel perfectly free to come up with whatever I want whether you like it or not. :-) Just as you are perfectly free to express the usual disdain, condescension, elitism of the federally-licensed high-born as practiced by others in here. :-) All that and more have been going on in here for years. 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. Ah, so the "voters" (in whatever Mt. Olympus like domain of the newsgroup powers-to-be) haven't got a clue as to what to do? Certainly sounds like that. Hint: Do NOT advertise possibilities of the future in regards to "actions" of moderation. Just DO it. You don't even have to wear Nikes on that job. :-) 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. Oh, goodie, it sounds like it will be weeks before someone considered offensive will be dealt with. Meanwhile, their offensive words will remain in view of all with access. Remember what happened to the fabled Maginot Line? :-) However, other moderated newsgroups that are considered successful usually consider the following behavior to be grounds for a temporary or permanent ban: Why do you address that to me? "Been there, done that" in computer-modem comms, remember? :-) You WILL find that true moderator tasks will have to be more draconian. But, you seem to think that the powers- that-be invented moderating. shrug That's like the myths held (dearly by some) by amateurs that amateurs invented radio. :-) - Provocation/Prevarication [such as "here's a challenge for you..."?] - Arguing against those that agree with you (i.e., arguing for the sake of arguing)/Filibustering/"Grease" (extending debate by avoiding direct rejoinder) [all march to the same drum beat?] - Name-calling/uncivil tone/disrespect for newsgroup participants [such as "little red-hatted monkey?"] - Trying to argue both ways/applying different standards of evidence to yourself versus others [such as "We amateur extras are better than you!"] - Trying to justify the above behavior with, "But *he* started it!" [tsk, "it" was started with the Incestuous Licensing Plan...] In particular, I don't think there's a moderator of *any* existing newsgroup that would accept the last argument as justification. Heh heh heh, you (as a member of the moderating team) have to get the last little "dig" in? :-) --- Tscha, my suggestion is still the For an indefinite period of time DELETE this newsgroup. Put it on a hold, whatever. Let the sociopaths, misfits, the emotionally- disturbed malcontents go somewhere else for their filthy perverted jollies. You (and the newsgroup powers-that- be) cannot control them now, what makes you think you can control them with group "moderating?" You have been a victim of forgery in here, an insidious little malignancy of a URL modification is all that was needed. What is there to stop forgeries in the future? "Noble intentions?!?" raucous laughter elided |
Gerritsen Sentenced
|
Moderated Newsgroup vs. Mailing List (was Gerritsen Sentenced)
In .com writes:
Paul W. Schleck wrote: I acknowledge that we have problem users, trolls, etc. on this newsgroup. I will consult, on an ongoing basis, with newsgroup participants for *specific* recommendations for actions, such that I am not contributing to this problem through my inaction. Here's an idea that I have seen work: email reflectors with a moderator. Anyone interested can sign up to the reflector - but they have to give a real email address and identity to the moderator/list coordinator. No anonymous stuff. The moderators don't read and approve each and every email before it is reflected. But if someone steps too far out of the reflector guidelines, or goes too far off topic, they're warned. If they do it too many times they are simply banned from the reflector. Which happens very rarely. That system works very well. Disagreements abound, yet are handled with civility. And a lot of good information and discussion results. The whole thing is simple and straightforward, and works for anyone who has email. Why all the complexity of a moderated newsgroup if it can be done by email? What are the advantages of usenet over a reflector? Good questions! Some of the answers are in the article "Tragedy of the Usenet Commons": http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...5a58c8d3396e17 that I relayed from Telecom Digest back in 2002, and recommended as useful reading to our proposed moderation team. Successful mailing lists do not scale well with potentially thousands of subscribers. The subscribe/unsubscribe burden gets to be overwhelming. Even with automation, there's still enough people who need manual assistance subscribing or unsubscribing. Also, the odds of tripping up SPAM filters goes up exponentially with audience size, either from automated mischaracterization, or misreading by human recipients. Mailing lists with thousands of subscribers will generate hundreds of bounces every month due to changing E-mail addresses. Large mailing lists are also not an efficient use of Internet resources, since they send the same message over and over and over and ... Unsuccessful mailing lists fragment audiences into tiny pockets, as mailing lists are not as well known or publicized as Usenet newsgroups. As the article above notes, even a great forum may go undiscovered by a user simply because "he or she doesn't know where to look or whom to ask." Duplication of effort, "re-inventing the wheel," and a shallow base of expertise then results. There are arguably many more "unsuccessful" mailing lists than successful ones because of this specific problem. This is the case even on Yahoo Groups, with many fragmented forums despite efforts to index groups and automate most of the administrative burdens. Some of Usenet's weaknesses are also its strengths. It has a distributed transport scheme where every node on the network shares communications and storage burdens. It is universally available (well, still nearly so). It is publicly archived at Google. All forums are indexed in a newsgroups database available at every news server. It is a long-time, mature resource, with a strong self-governance. The newsgroups for amateur radio on Usenet are voted into existence by user consensus, and thus are recognized by everyone as the "official" newsgroups. How would you convince enough users what are the "official" replacement mailing lists? I would disagree that Usenet newsgroups have to be complex. For one thing, we would propose to use Secure, Team-Based Usenet Moderation Program (STUMP): http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/ Which is a working, stable solution used by many other newsgroups we would like to emulate, such as misc.kids.moderated. As with misc.kids.moderated, most of the initial configuration work would simply be figuring out who the white-list, black-list, and manual review submitters would be, and it will not be necessary to read every article submitted on an ongoing basis. As a result, we anticipate that the workload will drop over time. All of this will be discussed in much more detail in the upcoming RFD. -- 73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ Finger for PGP Public Key |
Moderated Newsgroup, NO WAY!
"Paul W. Schleck" wrote nothing of any importance, as usual, in a message: ////remaining drivel flushed///// Moderated Group? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
Moderated Newsgroup vs. Mailing List (was Gerritsen Sentenced)
Paul W. Schleck wrote:
In .com writes: Paul W. Schleck wrote: I acknowledge that we have problem users, trolls, etc. on this newsgroup. I will consult, on an ongoing basis, with newsgroup participants for *specific* recommendations for actions, such that I am not contributing to this problem through my inaction. Here's an idea that I have seen work: email reflectors with a moderator. Anyone interested can sign up to the reflector - but they have to give a real email address and identity to the moderator/list coordinator. No anonymous stuff. The moderators don't read and approve each and every email before it is reflected. But if someone steps too far out of the reflector guidelines, or goes too far off topic, they're warned. If they do it too many times they are simply banned from the reflector. Which happens very rarely. That system works very well. Disagreements abound, yet are handled with civility. And a lot of good information and discussion results. The whole thing is simple and straightforward, and works for anyone who has email. Why all the complexity of a moderated newsgroup if it can be done by email? What are the advantages of usenet over a reflector? Good questions! Some of the answers are in the article "Tragedy of the Usenet Commons": http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...5a58c8d3396e17 that I relayed from Telecom Digest back in 2002, and recommended as useful reading to our proposed moderation team. I'll take a look! Successful mailing lists do not scale well with potentially thousands of subscribers. The subscribe/unsubscribe burden gets to be overwhelming. Even with automation, there's still enough people who need manual assistance subscribing or unsubscribing. Also, the odds of tripping up SPAM filters goes up exponentially with audience size, either from automated mischaracterization, or misreading by human recipients. Mailing lists with thousands of subscribers will generate hundreds of bounces every month due to changing E-mail addresses. Large mailing lists are also not an efficient use of Internet resources, since they send the same message over and over and over and ... Agreed to a point. Part of the question is size. How many people will really read a moderated policy group? The number of posters here has always been pretty small, and when you eliminate the anonymous, the people using multiple IDs and the noise, the numbers may be smaller than many reflectors I know of. Unsuccessful mailing lists fragment audiences into tiny pockets, as mailing lists are not as well known or publicized as Usenet newsgroups. As the article above notes, even a great forum may go undiscovered by a user simply because "he or she doesn't know where to look or whom to ask." Duplication of effort, "re-inventing the wheel," and a shallow base of expertise then results. Agreed to a point. But at the same time, how much use does Usenet get anymore? For example, some time back, AOL discontinued direct access, citing low usage. There are arguably many more "unsuccessful" mailing lists than successful ones because of this specific problem. This is the case even on Yahoo Groups, with many fragmented forums despite efforts to index groups and automate most of the administrative burdens. Maybe. The irony of the "information superhighway" Some of Usenet's weaknesses are also its strengths. It has a distributed transport scheme where every node on the network shares communications and storage burdens. It is universally available (well, still nearly so). I see access going down, though. Besides AOL's discontinuance, Google has moved it to a back page, as it were. Website-based forums like qrz.com and eham.net seem much more active nowadays. It is publicly archived at Google. To the chagrin of some posters to rrap.....;-) All forums are indexed in a newsgroups database available at every news server. It is a long-time, mature resource, with a strong self-governance. The newsgroups for amateur radio on Usenet are voted into existence by user consensus, and thus are recognized by everyone as the "official" newsgroups. How would you convince enough users what are the "official" replacement mailing lists? All I'm saying is that I've seen email reflectors work well with several hundred subscribers. How many people actually read rrap? I would disagree that Usenet newsgroups have to be complex. For one thing, we would propose to use Secure, Team-Based Usenet Moderation Program (STUMP): http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/ Looks doable. It appears to me, however, that every posting which gets through the basic robofilters is approved by a moderator before posting - is that true? Which is a working, stable solution used by many other newsgroups we would like to emulate, such as misc.kids.moderated. As with misc.kids.moderated, most of the initial configuration work would simply be figuring out who the white-list, black-list, and manual review submitters would be, and it will not be necessary to read every article submitted on an ongoing basis. As a result, we anticipate that the workload will drop over time. All of this will be discussed in much more detail in the upcoming RFD. Thanks for the info! --- And I'll repeat my other question: If the FCC simply drops the code test, or makes it optional like Canada did, what *other* policy topics would be on the table? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Moderated Newsgroup vs. Mailing List (was Gerritsen Sentenced)
Schleck's moderated group, if it ever happens, and that is
VERY doubtful, will consist of him and maybe a half dozen or less other people, with OF COURSE, Schleck as the *CENSOR-IN-CHARGE* drum rolls bugles eham, qrz.com, qth.com and others have multiple ham forums, with thousands of participants. You are only about two decades behind times Schleck. Nevertheless, have fun building your tiny little empire. It will do wonders for your thin skin and ego. ROTFLMAO! |
Gerritsen Sentenced
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com