A perfect example of stuff that would be filtered as noise should this
group go moderated someday. Despite the objections I've heard here, I
think there is much to gain here.

Of course this whole debate is a bit out of topic for this group to
start with...

I'm done now...


Miami Wind wrote:
blubbered & whined in a message...

of the flame wars myself however, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
KC4UAI



*FLUSHED*


//another psycho for the blocked-sender file//


PLONK

wrote:
A perfect example of stuff that would be filtered as noise should this
group go moderated someday. Despite the objections I've heard here, I
think there is much to gain here.

frankly I doubt it as I see it deemd aceptable round here to call
someone a child molestor but draws ire to use the word "whit"

Of course this whole debate is a bit out of topic for this group to
start with...

Well Old Friend,

I'm not sure I understand what you mean... You doubt that moderation
could help or you think it's just too far gone?

I think that a lot of the objectionable material that is obviously off
topic and the flame wars that have grown up around such junk as you
indicate would be *easy* to moderate away without giving up any freedom
to debate all sides of the issues.

You can disagree without being disagreeable... One only has to respect
the other guy, no matter how much you disagree with them. For example,
you may think that somebody doesn't know anything about the topic they
are making statements about, but you don't need to call him stupid to
debate the issues. You can just start bringing up the *facts* you
think they missed and ask for their thoughts on them.

I think you and I have had such discussions without having to resort to
a name calling flame war.. It can be done.

-= bob =-

wrote:
Well Old Friend,

I'm not sure I understand what you mean... You doubt that moderation
could help or you think it's just too far gone?

I think that a lot of the objectionable material that is obviously off
topic and the flame wars that have grown up around such junk as you
indicate would be *easy* to moderate away without giving up any freedom
to debate all sides of the issues.

it would be easy but I siply don't believit will happen

it has become perfactly acceptable to cenage in names calling rather
than anythinglike true deabte. one has merely to watch the news for
that

as member of several less than popular minorites I doubt that I would
receive any protection from moderators and that mdoeration would merely
end up serving as a sheild for my attacker since likely as well I would
be be premitted to truley respond to my attackers esp Robeson would
likely get through ost moderators I have seen meaning I would
effectively libeld without defense,

or else the moderation would be so heavy handed that nothing would get
through

You can disagree without being disagreeable... One only has to respect
the other guy, no matter how much you disagree with them.
indeed that is part of the problem

you are asking to respect people who main posting consist of calling a
child molestor,

I don't can't and will not respect these folks
For example,
you may think that somebody doesn't know anything about the topic they
are making statements about, but you don't need to call him stupid to
debate the issues. You can just start bringing up the *facts* you
think they missed and ask for their thoughts on them.
have you looked at the posts

does't work just get ignored

I think you and I have had such discussions without having to resort to
a name calling flame war.. It can be done.
we can sure but we are a small minority and perhaps another unpopular
one these days

-= bob =-

wrote in message
oups.com...
Well Old Friend,


More idiocy and moronic Psycho-Babble from the entity
calling itself bob_deep

Get a life you Moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well,

I suppose you are right that there is a risk in going fully moderated,
but at this point I don't see that this news group would have much to
loose.

Any reasonable debate is currently lost in the noise of the flamers as
evidenced in this thread.

Personally I don't think ones race, religion, sex, orientation etc has
any bearing on their ability to add to the debate of amateur radio
policy and I don't see how any of your responses to me would come close
to being the type of thing that should be moderated out of the group.

About facts being ignored you are right in part. Many folks only want
to stand on the soap box and don't want to be confused by the facts.
Some actually are interested in the facts and read such groups to find
them. I just don't think anybody is served when we get 15 posts in a 20
post thread that are obviously just flaming with nothing valueable to
add or some fine point to discuss. We simply are not going to attract
new readers like this.

I'm a bit tired of all the gutter talk that the bulk of this group
seems to be about. I personally don't care (from a
rec.radio.amateur.policy perspective anyway) what somebodies sexual
orientation is (real or imagined). I would generally ignore the
content anyway when such inflammatory language is used, the poster must
just not have anything worth while to say.

Don't be fooled though, some of us actually *do* look for those who
present logical arguments or new facts for our consideration. It may
not work with the general rabble flame throwers, but there are some
folks here who are willing to step back and consider new thinking.
Don't give up trying.

-= Bob =-

whined & cried in a message
Well, (such a deep subject for your shallow brain)


Do you ever stop whining and crying????


BWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

shut op asscrack

..
wrote in message
oups.com...

A perfect example of stuff that would be filtered as noise should this
group go moderated someday. Despite the objections I've heard here, I
think there is much to gain here.

Of course this whole debate is a bit out of topic for this group to
start with...

I'm done now...


Miami Wind wrote:
blubbered & whined in a message...

of the flame wars myself however, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
KC4UAI



*FLUSHED*


//another psycho for the blocked-sender file//


PLONK

wrote:
Well,

I suppose you are right that there is a risk in going fully moderated,
but at this point I don't see that this news group would have much to
loose.

Any reasonable debate is currently lost in the noise of the flamers as
evidenced in this thread.

becuase in part people like yourself stnad by and allow it

Personally I don't think ones race, religion, sex, orientation etc has
any bearing on their ability to add to the debate of amateur radio
policy and I don't see how any of your responses to me would come close
to being the type of thing that should be moderated out of the group.

About facts being ignored you are right in part. Many folks only want
to stand on the soap box and don't want to be confused by the facts.
Some actually are interested in the facts and read such groups to find
them. I just don't think anybody is served when we get 15 posts in a 20
post thread that are obviously just flaming with nothing valueable to
add or some fine point to discuss. We simply are not going to attract
new readers like this.

I'm a bit tired of all the gutter talk that the bulk of this group
seems to be about. I personally don't care (from a
rec.radio.amateur.policy perspective anyway) what somebodies sexual
orientation is (real or imagined). I would generally ignore the
content anyway when such inflammatory language is used, the poster must
just not have anything worth while to say.

as you ignore such content and allow it to drowntherest without wishing
to seem in flamitory you start to become PART of the problem ,
lessorthan the posters

Don't be fooled though, some of us actually *do* look for those who
present logical arguments or new facts for our consideration. It may
not work with the general rabble flame throwers, but there are some
folks here who are willing to step back and consider new thinking.
Don't give up trying.

i haven't

-= Bob =-