On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:32:21 -0400, "KH6HZ" wrote:


This forum has become a quagmire, pretty much singlehandedly at the hands of
the Mark Morgan, who somehow feels he has to spew a response to each and
every message someone posts, including his own,
no md i feel i should answer those forging my posts

"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 Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:32:21 -0400, "KH6HZ" wrote:

(watch, he will feel compelled to respond to this posting as well, much like
Pavlov's dog.)
lying again md i chose to do so indeed can you answer a question? way
is it you object to people responding posts in ng?


"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

Told ya. Took less than an hour.

"KH6HZ" wrote in message
. ..
Told ya. Took less than an hour.
I'm surprised it took that long. He was probably busy flaming the Nim
boards.

--
I'd love to have heard Mark's CW operation during a
Sweepstakes 'test. I'll bet is sounded like someone falling down a
flight of stairs with a keyer and a Scrabble game.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:27:04 -0500, "KD8CTL" Shemale
fake

"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 Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:27:04 -0500, "KD8CTL" Shemale
fake


Whose callsign are you using?? Hmmmm????

And whose last name?

Pot, kettle.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:19:14 -0500, "Andy" anon@anon wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:27:04 -0500, "KD8CTL" Shemale
fake


Whose callsign are you using?? Hmmmm????

And whose last name?

my own Kb9rqz

Pot, kettle.


"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 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!


snip

73
kh6hz


73, Leo

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 25, 8:40 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:17:22 -0700, John Smith





wrote:
Leo wrote:

...
Just wondering - what's up with Len, Mike,Dave, Jim, Brian, Steve,
Dee, Kim, and the rest of the old regulars on the group? Hope all is
well!

73, Leo

The perverts have rein--however, what is new, the same thing has
happened to my city ... :-(

Besides, it seems that policy was not an interest, it was just a "stated
ruse" to allow the CW Proclaimers to have voice and attempt to maintain
control.

sadly that seemed to have been the whole root of of that issue

Sadly they grew upset that folks who weren't code advocates found a
voice on policy, so they created a moderated group to exclude the no-
coders. After the initial back-slapping, they found that they didn't
have much to say to each other.


No it was not created to keep no-coders out. Anyone who is polite can
easily join and participate in the moderated group regardless of their
opinions on code. In this group it was impossible to hold any sort of
polite discussion with anyone. Here, every attempt at a discussion was
eventually diverted into either personal attacks or a sex discussion, etc.,
none of which I have any interest in.

I have set up filters for this newsgroup to keep out the worst of it. I
find that after filtering all the objectionable material, there is little to
nothing happening on rrap most days. Many days I receive absolutely no
messages from this group due to that filtering. The list shows tens of
postings actually made but none get downloaded.

Dee

"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