wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:58:14 -0400, "Dee Flint"
wrote:
You CW buffs claim you can copy a single signal out of a pile-up, so
why do you bother with rrap filters?


Notice how quickly others (NOT you) have dragged this thread into the
gutter?


what gutter?

Why should I tolerate that?

why should he or I tolerate your lectureing and this time flat out
lying

I refuse to allow myself to be treated
that way.

So you do read it all. We know you read every bit of it. You love it ,too

obviously you are consenting to it Dee

Dee is just plain kinky.

You're dam right, Mark!

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a
congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

and get ou the newly recovered KB9RQZ.blogspot.com as well

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sep 28, 8:58 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...





On Sep 27, 9:27 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
"Leo" wrote in message

. ..

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:29:15 -0400, "KH6HZ" wrote:

"Leo" wrote:

Since the new moderated group was created (whose mission was to
improve communication and raise the bar on decency over the Policy
group), everyone seems to have disappeared. The moderated group is
virtually dead, containing primarily bulletins from Amateur groups
around the world and the odd post hare and there....

I suspect the reason why the .moderated group is dead is due to the
'standards' the moderators have decided to implement.

For example, I was recently banned from the .moderated group.

My "crime"? I had 3 rejected postings in a period of 4 months.

That's just weird.

When your posts were rejected, were you advised of the specific reason
for rejection? Given an opportunity to explain, or revise the
offending post? And where was the 'three strikes' rule documented - I
read over the charter just after the group was established, and I
don't recall that being stated.

I'm all for moderated groups, normally - they provide valuable
filtering of off-topic and malicious posts. And I agree with you - if
the moderators are practising abject censorship instead of moderation,
then it becomes a forum consisting only of those who share similar
thoughts of what is appropriate and what is not. In other words, a
closed group.

No thanks. I'd rather that I remain the judge of what I believe to be
appropriate, rather than delegate that task to a group of net nannies!

Normally I would agree with you. However, I got really tired of having
to
create new filters on a nearly daily basis to eliminate the hundreds of
posts that flooded this news group on a regular basis. Those posts had
nothing to do with policy and everything to do with personal wars. It
was
impossible to carry on any type of discussion without it being hijacked
or
turned into personal attacks. Even now, only a handful of posts make it
through the filters.

There's no particular virtue in staying in the swamp.

Dee-

Dee, I've never filtered anyone. I either read them or I don't.

You CW buffs claim you can copy a single signal out of a pile-up, so
why do you bother with rrap filters?

Notice how quickly others (NOT you) have dragged this thread into the
gutter? Why should I tolerate that? I refuse to allow myself to be treated
that way.

I noticed.

Why should I take the time and trouble to have to skim the "From" column
when the computer can do it automatically for me? It's much more efficient
to filter out the garbage in the first place that to sort through it
afterwards.

Fair enough.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:11:56 -0500, "WX0XXX"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:58:14 -0400, "Dee Flint"
wrote:
You CW buffs claim you can copy a single signal out of a pile-up, so
why do you bother with rrap filters?


Notice how quickly others (NOT you) have dragged this thread into the
gutter?


what gutter?

Why should I tolerate that?

why should he or I tolerate your lectureing and this time flat out
lying

I refuse to allow myself to be treated
that way.

So you do read it all.

not all of it but most
We know you read every bit of it. You love it ,too


nope

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

and get ou the newly recovered KB9RQZ.blogspot.com as well

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:58:14 -0400, "Dee Flint"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
On Sep 27, 9:27 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
"Leo" wrote in message

...





On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:29:15 -0400, "KH6HZ" wrote:

"Leo" wrote:

Since the new moderated group was created (whose mission was to
improve communication and raise the bar on decency over the Policy
group), everyone seems to have disappeared. The moderated group is
virtually dead, containing primarily bulletins from Amateur groups
around the world and the odd post hare and there....

I suspect the reason why the .moderated group is dead is due to the
'standards' the moderators have decided to implement.

For example, I was recently banned from the .moderated group.

My "crime"? I had 3 rejected postings in a period of 4 months.

That's just weird.

When your posts were rejected, were you advised of the specific reason
for rejection? Given an opportunity to explain, or revise the
offending post? And where was the 'three strikes' rule documented - I
read over the charter just after the group was established, and I
don't recall that being stated.

I'm all for moderated groups, normally - they provide valuable
filtering of off-topic and malicious posts. And I agree with you - if
the moderators are practising abject censorship instead of moderation,
then it becomes a forum consisting only of those who share similar
thoughts of what is appropriate and what is not. In other words, a
closed group.

No thanks. I'd rather that I remain the judge of what I believe to be
appropriate, rather than delegate that task to a group of net nannies!

Normally I would agree with you. However, I got really tired of having
to
create new filters on a nearly daily basis to eliminate the hundreds of
posts that flooded this news group on a regular basis. Those posts had
nothing to do with policy and everything to do with personal wars. It
was
impossible to carry on any type of discussion without it being hijacked
or
turned into personal attacks. Even now, only a handful of posts make
it
through the filters.

There's no particular virtue in staying in the swamp.

Dee-

Dee, I've never filtered anyone. I either read them or I don't.

You CW buffs claim you can copy a single signal out of a pile-up, so
why do you bother with rrap filters?


Notice how quickly others (NOT you) have dragged this thread into the
gutter?


what gutter?

Why should I tolerate that?

why should he or I tolerate your lectureing and this time flat out
lying bcuaese aftre all i am moderator here and have ultmaite sayso

I refuse to allow myself to be treated
that way.

obviously you are consenting to it Dee and he and i condone it

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a
congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bradvejournal.com/

and get ou the newly recovered KB9RQZ.blogspot.com as well

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:11:56 -0500, "WX0XXX"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:58:14 -0400, "Dee Flint"
wrote:
You CW buffs claim you can copy a single signal out of a pile-up, so
why do you bother with rrap filters?


Notice how quickly others (NOT you) have dragged this thread into the
gutter?


what gutter?

Why should I tolerate that?

why should he or I tolerate your lectureing and this time flat out
lying

I refuse to allow myself to be treated
that way.

So you do read it all.

not all of it but most becuas i find owger that way
We know you read every bit of it. You love it ,too


i condone it and yeay, even concorage it

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a
congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

and get ou the newly recovered KB9RQZ.blogspot.com as well

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sep 27, 8:53 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
"Leo" wrote:
That's just weird.

It is silly, really. Anyone with any net.knowledge can have an unlimited
number of names, IP addresses, etc. There's really no way to "ban" someone.
I could still be posting there today, if I really wanted to.

insteresting observartion MD you are right of course

OTOH you object if somebody uses that fact if you don't likeem

On Sep 29, 12:05 pm, an_old_friend wrote:
On Sep 27, 8:53 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:

"Leo" wrote:
That's just weird.
It is silly, really. Anyone with any net.knowledge can have an unlimited
number of names, IP addresses, etc. There's really no way to "ban" someone.
I could still be posting there today, if I really wanted to.

insteresting observartion MD you are right of course

OTOH you object if somebody uses that fact if you don't likeem

Ayup! And the others, too. They couldn't stand it when I decided to
quit getting all the spam in my regualr email box.

Then we had BlackTower and Quitefine, posing as Mike and Jim. Good
Grief!!!

On Sep 29, 3:11 pm, wrote:
On Sep 29, 12:05 pm, an_old_friend wrote:

On Sep 27, 8:53 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:

"Leo" wrote:
That's just weird.
It is silly, really. Anyone with any net.knowledge can have an unlimited
number of names, IP addresses, etc. There's really no way to "ban" someone.
I could still be posting there today, if I really wanted to.

insteresting observartion MD you are right of course

OTOH you object if somebody uses that fact if you don't likeem

Ayup! And the others, too. They couldn't stand it when I decided to
quit getting all the spam in my regualr email box.

indeed I use much the same theory alough what migth realy fix the
problem kis robomoderations reqiure somesort of auntentacation of the
sender nothing more that would stop all the problem children but
robeson


Then we had BlackTower and Quitefine, posing as Mike and Jim. Good
Grief!!!

but Procoder have specail prevledges

and as MD said the "ban in Mod is easy to get around

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 29, 3:11 pm, wrote:
On Sep 29, 12:05 pm, an_old_friend wrote:

On Sep 27, 8:53 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:

"Leo" wrote:
That's just weird.
It is silly, really. Anyone with any net.knowledge can have an
unlimited
number of names, IP addresses, etc. There's really no way to "ban"
someone.
I could still be posting there today, if I really wanted to.

insteresting observartion MD you are right of course

OTOH you object if somebody uses that fact if you don't likeem

Ayup! And the others, too. They couldn't stand it when I decided to
quit getting all the spam in my regualr email box.

indeed I use much the same theory alough what migth realy fix the
problem kis robomoderations reqiure somesort of auntentacation of the
sender nothing more that would stop all the problem children but
robeson


Then we had BlackTower and Quitefine, posing as Mike and Jim. Good
Grief!!!

but Procoder have specail prevledges becuase they wokerd harder for their
ARS licences

and as MD said the "ban in Mod is easy to get around but depiite my best
attmpts the still banned me

"an_old_friend" wrote:

insteresting observartion MD you are right of course

Naturally. All my postings are 100% factually accurate.


OTOH you object if somebody uses that fact if you don't likeem

Not quite sure what this means.

I stated something is technically feasible. I didn't state I supported one
way or the other if someone did or didn't do it.