Following thoughtful article seen on another medium.....

Amateur Radio Newsgroups: Total Meltdown
Paul W. Schleck (K3FU) on April 26, 2006


Way back in 1972, before there was a World-Wide Web, even before there was Usenet News, amateur radio enthusiasts on the then-ARPANet organized a mailing list known as Info-Hams. In 1979, a couple of researchers at Duke and UNC developed a system that used "Unix to Unix File Copy" or "uucp" to copy files from one system to another, to make a broadcast bulletin-board system called "Usenet." The Info-Hams mailing list eventually gatewayed to this system, becoming fa.info-hams (fa = "From ARPANet"), then rec.ham-radio, then rec.radio.amateur.*.

Fast-forward to the present, and the newsgroups rec.radio.amateur.misc and rec.radio.amateur.policy are now in complete meltdown (the *.antenna, *.dx, *.equipment, and *.space newsgroups still seem to be in good shape, though). Both forums are almost completely bereft of any topic discussion. Instead, one can find run-on threads consisting of short, sniping, and personal attacks containing obscene language from what must be fewer than a dozen, mostly anonymous, users.

What happened? -- Maybe too many run-on arguments about code, or attacks on individual ham's personal character. Maybe just the anarchy and Tragedy of the Commons that is encouraged by totally-open, unmoderated forums where no one is obliged to obey any rules, and no competent authority seems able or willing to enforce them if there were any. Further fanning the flames are free, and anonymous, news posting sites like Google Groups, Yahoo, etc., as well as any news site that simply doesn't care to enforce any net etiquette among its users. Some hams have even offered the explanation that better enforcement of amateur radio regulations by Riley Hollingsworth at the FCC has had the unintended consequence of driving problem hams off the bands and onto a less restrictive forum to wreck.

As for Google Groups, it certainly deserves credit for archiving most newsgroup discussions since 1981 (thanks to old backup tapes meticulously maintained by Henry Spencer at the University of Toronto), but also a big raspberry for contributing to this problem.

This hasn't happened to every newsgroup. Even though other newsgroups have trolls, there seems to be a "immune system" of constructive users who step in both to ostracize problem users, and continue positive contributions in the face of such troublemakers. Certainly this behavior is not tolerated on web logs such as qrz.com and eHam.net. The site owners simply would not allow it. There is at least one example of a licensed radio amateur who is Dr. Jekyll on the blogs, but Mr. Hyde on rec.radio.amateur.policy. There may even be others.

I'm sure some would argue that Usenet is obsolete, and we are all better off going to moderated blogs. Still, I can't help but think that something is being lost here. For example, 20 years into the future, will we be able to read archived and indexed articles from most web logs that exist today, as we now have with Google Groups? Are there constructive solutions to the meltdown on rec.radio.amateur.*, such as converting newsgroups to moderated status, even if such moderated status is simply a self-approval, or anonymous user filter, mechanism?

Posted from another medium
by The Man in the Maze
QRV at Baboquivari Peak

Here are some follow-on comments by the same author (K3FU), also copied from the same "other" medium

Amateur Radio Newsgroups: Total Meltdown Reply
by K3FU on April 26, 2006

Thanks for everyone's comments, both here, and on QRZ. I admit that my
article was intended to initiate preliminary discussion to start a
formal proposal to moderate some of the amateur radio newsgroups on
Usenet. Already, I have two other interested volunteers. I would
welcome additional interested people to E-mail me before I contact the
Usenet Group Mentors. These mentors would assist with any Request For
Discussion (RFD), and possible Call For Votes (CFV), on news.groups and
rec.radio.amateur.misc/policy. Again, this is all preliminary. I
welcome good feedback from experienced Usenetters, particularly the
Usenet Group Mentors, in the development of any proposal.

When I say "meltdown," I don't just mean that problem users exist, or
that people post opinions that are on-topic to amateur radio with which
I or others disagree. I mean that probably less than a dozen problem
users have nearly 100% taken over the misc and policy newsgroups with
their postings. Whatever "immune system" the user community had
previously - that was able to overcome, or just ignore, these problem
users - has completely broken down. What I mean by "problem users" is
that their posts are almost entirely short, sniping, and
profanity-laden, personal attacks against each other, with no topic
discussion. Nearly all of the posters are anonymous. Many of which are
likely "sock-puppets" (i.e., various alter-egos of the same individual),
posting from a small number of anonymous posting sites like Google
Groups. A situation exists where virtually all constructive users have
been run off and the misc and policy newsgroups have become a total
write-off, serving as nothing but bad public relations for our hobby
(service, whatever).

My reading of Usenet newsgroup creation rules, and newsgroup threads
discussing those rules, indicates to me that an existing, unmoderated
newsgroup *can* be converted to moderated status. In fact, I believe
that comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi is an example of a formerly
unmoderated newsgroup that became moderated (though "moderated" only in
the technical, implementation, sense; see more below). I believe most
people agree that with the distributed nature of Usenet newsgroups and
independent news servers, it is nearly impossible to have a newsgroup
deleted. Even if it were possible, might even be seen as a cure worse
than the disease. Moderating the existing newsgroups in place, rather
than new newsgroups, is justified in the face of the existing,
unmoderated, misc and policy newsgroups becoming totally damaged
write-offs at this point. I've been in touch with the Usenet Group
Mentors already, and one of them tells me that they wouldn't refuse
outright a proposal to convert the existing newsgroups, but they would
prefer instead to have a proposal that makes one or more new newsgroups
with the *.moderated suffix (e.g., rec.radio.amateur.moderated).

Yes, it is possible to reach problem users, even in unmoderated
newsgroups. Most ethical ISP's have rules against using their services
to "stalk," "threaten," or "harass" someone. Some even prohibit
"off-topic" or "disruptive" postings to newsgroups, even unmoderated
ones. Google Groups actually had conditions like these as part of their
user policies in the past, but quietly dropped them. Google apparently
doesn't care anymore, and thus serves as the source for most of the
trash. Recently, I was able to get a problem user shut down, or at
least got him to stop posting to rec.radio.amateur.policy and
rec.radio.cb, but only because his ISP had ethical user policies and a
willingness to enforce them. (Hint to the shut down user: It doesn't
help your case to go on record in traceable Usenet postings that you
don't feel obligated to follow any rules, including FCC regulations and
your ISP's user agreement, even bragging publicly about the specifics of
how you violated them on a willful and ongoing basis.).

Such enforcement efforts are time-consuming and can only catch the
grossest violators posting from the most ethical sites. At the end of
the day, such efforts are more work than just implementing moderation in
the first place. Moderation serves as much as a deterrence as a filter.
Users know better than to step too far beyond the pale on eHam and QRZ,
so the workload of their moderators is minimal. Moderation shouldn't be
an ongoing battle beyond the initial implementation and fine-tuning.

Moderation would consist of a very light hand, and simply to deal with
the small number of abusive, beyond-the-pale, posters and their
anonymous sock-puppets. If it's not obscene, not illegal, not an
ad-hominem attack, not a threat, it is on-topic for amateur radio, and
not part of a stale thread that has already been beaten to death over a
reasonable period (say, two weeks), it should be posted. It might be
necessary for the moderators to start the thread on the right newsgroups
(policy vs. misc vs. rec.radio.swap vs. rec.radio.info), but that should
be about it. One issue that would certainly be open for discussion
would be that of anonymity. The "last name or callsign" rule from QST
classified ads would be ideal. The use of a real E-mail address would
be encouraged (and would be helpful to send moderator's replies). But,
I suppose that some consistent use of a unique, well-known nickname
and/or obfuscated E-mail address, used without intent to deceive, could
be accommodated. With a team of moderators, and some automation
techniques, moderation should not be an overwhelming workload.

There are several newsgroup examples to choose from, not all of which
require ongoing, close, manual review of hundreds of articles per day by
a single moderator. One, sci.physics.research, has submissions sent to
a central E-mail address, that then forwards each submission randomly to
one of their team of moderators. The recipient decides whether it's
appropriate to post, based on agreed-upon objective criteria, and posts
the article to the newsgroup. Another newsgroup,
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi, is fully automated. Moderation in
that case is simply to deflect first-time posters with an autoreply
containing references, including an FAQ list. The second (and
subsequent) posts would go right through. Even some traditional,
single-moderator newsgroups like comp.dcom.telecom have moderators that
will simply shut down a thread after everyone has reasonably had a say,
but before it degrades into personal attacks or off-topic discussion.

Some hybrid of all of these techniques could work for
rec.radio.amateur.misc and rec.radio.amateur.policy. Heavy use of
automated E-mail filter tools such as Spamassassin and Procmail would
weed out from the moderator submission queue nearly all SPAM, problem
posters (checking the harder-to-forge headers like NNTP-Posting-Host),
and obvious profanity/obscenity. This would leave a much smaller batch
of articles to be manually reviewed in a "service" queue by a team of
moderators. Turnaround on articles should be less than 24 hours. This
would be quick enough to keep discussion lively, but not so fast that
impulsive, cascaded flame wars full of ad-hominem attacks are allowed to
grow. I believe that filtering of rogue sites and problem users can be
done surgically enough such that constructive users won't be shut out,
or unfairly delayed, just because they are posting from Google Groups,
for example. It should also be possible to "white-list" verified
posters with good conduct, either placing them in a priority queue for
cursory review, or even posting their articles immediately (this concept
is similar to how "Karma" is implemented on slashdot.org, for example).
This would further reduce the moderation workload, and serve as an
incentive for good behavior.

Whatever filtering, and submission queue management, schemes are used
can be adapted in the face of new or changing threats. In terms of any
automated "black-listing," it should even be possible to deal with
violators on a flexible basis (warnings, suspension, only using
permanent expulsion as a last resort in the face of gross, repeated, and
willful violations). The existing first-time poster welcome message
service for rec.radio.amateur.*, in use since 1996, can also serve as an
ongoing monitor and cross-check. Specifically, it would measure the
amount of "sock-puppeting" that might be occurring to try to game any
automation, and get around moderation restrictions. Large numbers of
new, throwaway, anonymous addresses would result in a
statistically-significant surge in "new" posters being sent the welcome
message, for example. After a while, the problem users will just give
up and go elsewhere, preferably off of Usenet entirely.

Copied from another site and posted here by
The Man in the Maze
QRL at Baboquivari Peak

You are nothing but a common everyday
NetKKKop.

Get a life weirdo!


BWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

On Sat, 6 May 2006 14:20:11 +0000, Iitoi wrote:

Following thoughtful article seen on another medium.....

Amateur Radio Newsgroups: Total Meltdown
Paul W. Schleck (K3FU) on April 26, 2006


Way back in 1972, before there was a World-Wide Web, even before there
[snip]

This is a very predictable post from the indivdual involved. It also
pretty much ignores the details about how Usenet moderated groups have
traditionally worked.

First mistake: It is for all practical purposes not feasible to turn
an unmoderated news group into one which is moderated. Instead, you
need to create a new, moderated news group such as
rec.radio.amateur.policy.moderated. You have to hope that the news
servers which receive the control message which creates the moderated
group process the message properly. Many news server admins simply
think that moderated groups really don't work well, and they ignore
such messages.

That's because moderated Usenet groups have mostly been a failure.

Why? It was trivial to spoof the standard moderated groups in the
past by supplying your own Approved header. Right up through the
middle 1990's, people who understood the basics of Usenet could easily
post to any moderated news group, completely bypassing the moderator's
control. I know: I used to post to a couple of moderated news groups
by supplying the header "Approved: of course" and the posts would
appear in spite of any moderator (c.f. alt.2600.moderated).

After the advent of asymmetric key authentication (such as that used by
SSL/TLS or GPG), there was an attempt to harden moderation by
requiring that approvals be cryptographicaly signed by the moderator.

Similar requirements were put on cancel and rmgroup control messages.

Unfortunately, neither approach really worked. The Usenet server
admins weren't particularly interested in adding crypto capability to
their servers, and the method foundered. Even now, if you take a look
at control.cancel, you'll see that most cancel messages do not use any
kind of public/private key authentication. They are mostly in the
original format first used by Usenet back in the 1980s.

Mr. Schleck, in spite of his claims to a long tenure on Usenet, seems
to misunderstand its technical details. He also wants to deal with
problem news groups by asserting control over them so that people "do
it his way."

And that completely ignores decades of Usenet history.

For decades, Usenet readers have been admonished to take
responsibility for cleaning up news groups into their own hands. Such
responsibility is carried out by means of local filters (a kill file
in the old terminology). If you don't like what you see, drop the
poster or his whole domain into a kill file and be forever done with
him.

I've been successfully killing 99% of the junk posts in rrap/m while
allowing the useful posts to get through. It isn't rocket science; it
doesn't require moderation, but it DOES require the kind of technical
ability that hams supposedly possess.

Go out and download the free Xnews or slrn news readers (the latter runs
on all popular OSes) and learn how to get rid of the junk posts
instead of expecting someone else like a moderator to do it for you.

Don't let the control freaks like Schleck attempt to have their way
(BTW, he's in my kill file and has been there for years). Make a
serious effort to take responsibility for what you read yourself.

"Stagger Lee" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 May 2006 14:20:11 +0000, Iitoi
wrote:

Following thoughtful article seen on another medium.....

Amateur Radio Newsgroups: Total Meltdown
Paul W. Schleck (K3FU) on April 26, 2006


Way back in 1972, before there was a World-Wide Web, even before there
[snip]

This is a very predictable post from the indivdual involved. It also
pretty much ignores the details about how Usenet moderated groups have
traditionally worked.

First mistake: It is for all practical purposes not feasible to turn
an unmoderated news group into one which is moderated. Instead, you
need to create a new, moderated news group such as
rec.radio.amateur.policy.moderated. You have to hope that the news
servers which receive the control message which creates the moderated
group process the message properly. Many news server admins simply
think that moderated groups really don't work well, and they ignore
such messages.

That's because moderated Usenet groups have mostly been a failure.

Why? It was trivial to spoof the standard moderated groups in the
past by supplying your own Approved header. Right up through the
middle 1990's, people who understood the basics of Usenet could easily
post to any moderated news group, completely bypassing the moderator's
control. I know: I used to post to a couple of moderated news groups
by supplying the header "Approved: of course" and the posts would
appear in spite of any moderator (c.f. alt.2600.moderated).

After the advent of asymmetric key authentication (such as that used by
SSL/TLS or GPG), there was an attempt to harden moderation by
requiring that approvals be cryptographicaly signed by the moderator.

Similar requirements were put on cancel and rmgroup control messages.

Unfortunately, neither approach really worked. The Usenet server
admins weren't particularly interested in adding crypto capability to
their servers, and the method foundered. Even now, if you take a look
at control.cancel, you'll see that most cancel messages do not use any
kind of public/private key authentication. They are mostly in the
original format first used by Usenet back in the 1980s.

Mr. Schleck, in spite of his claims to a long tenure on Usenet, seems
to misunderstand its technical details. He also wants to deal with
problem news groups by asserting control over them so that people "do
it his way."

And that completely ignores decades of Usenet history.

For decades, Usenet readers have been admonished to take
responsibility for cleaning up news groups into their own hands. Such
responsibility is carried out by means of local filters (a kill file
in the old terminology). If you don't like what you see, drop the
poster or his whole domain into a kill file and be forever done with
him.

I've been successfully killing 99% of the junk posts in rrap/m while
allowing the useful posts to get through. It isn't rocket science; it
doesn't require moderation, but it DOES require the kind of technical
ability that hams supposedly possess.

Go out and download the free Xnews or slrn news readers (the latter runs
on all popular OSes) and learn how to get rid of the junk posts
instead of expecting someone else like a moderator to do it for you.

Don't let the control freaks like Schleck attempt to have their way
(BTW, he's in my kill file and has been there for years). Make a
serious effort to take responsibility for what you read yourself.

I did set up my controls and sent a number of folks to the trash bin.
Unfortunately, almost nothing was left. There is little discussion around
these parts about amateur radio policy.

Perhaps I am missing something here, but I suspect that when the number of
flames reaches a certain level, serious folks simply leave the newsgroup.

Rec.radio.amateur.misc was a trash bin 4 or 5 years ago. Perhaps 3 years
ago, rec.radio.cb went down the tubes. This group has been a mess for the
past year or so.

As to control freaks, I prefer that folks drive on the right side of the
road here in the U.S. Some rules appear necessary to protect the majority
of users.

Whilst the thought of a moderated group does not particularly appeal to me,
I would be open to options that would get a newsgroup back to a semblance of
what it was designed for. Kill-filing offenders leaves you with nothing
around these parts today. Take a look in this newsgroup right now.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Iitoi" wrote in message
...

Following thoughtful article seen on another medium.....

Amateur Radio Newsgroups: Total Meltdown
Paul W. Schleck (K3FU) on April 26, 2006

no no no, you got it all wrong.
HR NG's have gone to shi+ because
Hollingsworth wanted it that way.
After he cleaned up the major players
of the 14.313 mess that went on un-checked for over 20
Years, followed shortly by a clean sweep of the
75 Meter clownss, RH made several
statements to the effect that "..all the former QRM'ers
he didn't get should go to Usenet where they can play
all day via the keyboard and clear off of Ham Radio".

Guess what......THEY DID JUST THAT.
(...including me too - I was the "Dancing JP Chicken"
from 14.313 for many Years. Drove Herbie nuts.
Loved every minute too. Another person on
RRAP, who I will not reveal, is
the legendary "Spongeboy-Bucketmouth" which the
late Mike 'MUJ made famous)

So - they you go boys - and we used to say:

"ENJOY.....YA'VE EARNED IT"(....on the BARF Cannonball!)
Baaaaaaaaa hahahahhahahaha!

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

[snip]


I did set up my controls and sent a number of folks to the trash bin.
Unfortunately, almost nothing was left. There is little discussion around
these parts about amateur radio policy.

Perhaps I am missing something here, but I suspect that when the number of
flames reaches a certain level, serious folks simply leave the newsgroup.


That's pretty much true. Some of us though are waiting around for the
flamers to finally get tired.

[snip]

As to control freaks, I prefer that folks drive on the right side of the
road here in the U.S. Some rules appear necessary to protect the majority
of users.


Where safety is involved, yes we need such rules. But a bunch of junk news
postings are only an annoyance not a safety issue.

Whilst the thought of a moderated group does not particularly appeal to
me,
I would be open to options that would get a newsgroup back to a semblance
of
what it was designed for. Kill-filing offenders leaves you with nothing
around these parts today. Take a look in this newsgroup right now.


Perhaps someday they'll get tired.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Iitoi wrote:
Following thoughtful article seen on another medium.....

Amateur Radio Newsgroups: Total Meltdown
Paul W. Schleck (K3FU) on April 26, 2006


Way back in 1972, before there was a World-Wide Web, even before there
was Usenet News, amateur radio enthusiasts on the then-ARPANet
organized a mailing list known as Info-Hams. In 1979, a couple of
researchers at Duke and UNC developed a system that used "Unix to Unix
File Copy" or "uucp" to copy files from one system to another, to make
a broadcast bulletin-board system called "Usenet." The Info-Hams
mailing list eventually gatewayed to this system, becoming fa.info-hams
(fa = "From ARPANet"), then rec.ham-radio, then rec.radio.amateur.*.

Fast-forward to the present, and the newsgroups rec.radio.amateur.misc
and rec.radio.amateur.policy are now in complete meltdown (the
*.antenna, *.dx, *.equipment, and *.space newsgroups still seem to be
in good shape, though). Both forums are almost completely bereft of any
topic discussion. Instead, one can find run-on threads consisting of
short, sniping, and personal attacks containing obscene language from
what must be fewer than a dozen, mostly anonymous, users.

What happened? -- Maybe too many run-on arguments about code, or
attacks on individual ham's personal character. Maybe just the anarchy
and Tragedy of the Commons that is encouraged by totally-open,
unmoderated forums where no one is obliged to obey any rules, and no
competent authority seems able or willing to enforce them if there were
any. Further fanning the flames are free, and anonymous, news posting
sites like Google Groups, Yahoo, etc., as well as any news site that
simply doesn't care to enforce any net etiquette among its users. Some
hams have even offered the explanation that better enforcement of
amateur radio regulations by Riley Hollingsworth at the FCC has had the
unintended consequence of driving problem hams off the bands and onto a
less restrictive forum to wreck.

As for Google Groups, it certainly deserves credit for archiving most
newsgroup discussions since 1981 (thanks to old backup tapes
meticulously maintained by Henry Spencer at the University of Toronto),
but also a big raspberry for contributing to this problem.

This hasn't happened to every newsgroup. Even though other newsgroups
have trolls, there seems to be a "immune system" of constructive users
who step in both to ostracize problem users, and continue positive
contributions in the face of such troublemakers. Certainly this
behavior is not tolerated on web logs such as qrz.com and eHam.net. The
site owners simply would not allow it. There is at least one example of
a licensed radio amateur who is Dr. Jekyll on the blogs, but Mr. Hyde
on rec.radio.amateur.policy. There may even be others.

I'm sure some would argue that Usenet is obsolete, and we are all
better off going to moderated blogs. Still, I can't help but think that
something is being lost here. For example, 20 years into the future,
will we be able to read archived and indexed articles from most web
logs that exist today, as we now have with Google Groups? Are there
constructive solutions to the meltdown on rec.radio.amateur.*, such as
converting newsgroups to moderated status, even if such moderated
status is simply a self-approval, or anonymous user filter, mechanism?


Posted from another medium
by The Man in the Maze
QRV at Baboquivari Peak


--
Iitoi

What a ****ing idiot.

In Stagger Lee writes:

On Sat, 6 May 2006 14:20:11 +0000, Iitoi wrote:

Following thoughtful article seen on another medium.....

Amateur Radio Newsgroups: Total Meltdown
Paul W. Schleck (K3FU) on April 26, 2006


Way back in 1972, before there was a World-Wide Web, even before there
[snip]

This is a very predictable post from the indivdual involved. It also
pretty much ignores the details about how Usenet moderated groups have
traditionally worked.

[...]

Don't let the control freaks like Schleck attempt to have their way
(BTW, he's in my kill file and has been there for years). Make a
serious effort to take responsibility for what you read yourself.

PSSSSSTTTT!!!

Since Stagger Lee has me in his kill file, and thus won't see this
article, I can let the rest of the newsgroup in on a little secret.

Most of the points in his post were anticipated, and rebutted, in the
third post of mine, made on April 27th, to the QRZ/eHam thread that has
been relayed by an anonymous user to this newsgroup. It wasn't me (I
always post from Novia), but it's probably just as well that the matter
has broken open for discussion here.

You can view the entire threads of discussion at:

http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard....T;f=7;t=119282

and

http://www.eham.net/articles/13581

Furthermore, any proposed moderated newsgroup will have a team of
moderators, applying objective moderation criteria to be decided upon,
and announced before, any newsgroup approval or creation. Volunteer
moderators have been, and will be, solicited.

In the meantime, if anyone is sincerely interested in joining such a
team, please contact me at my E-mail address above.

Remember, mum's the word! SHHHHHHH!!!

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

On Sun, 7 May 2006 08:58:34 -0400, Dee Flint wrote:
:
: "Jim Hampton" wrote in message
: ...
:
: [snip]
:
:
: I did set up my controls and sent a number of folks to the trash bin.
: Unfortunately, almost nothing was left. There is little discussion around
: these parts about amateur radio policy.
:
: Perhaps I am missing something here, but I suspect that when the number of
: flames reaches a certain level, serious folks simply leave the newsgroup.
:
:
: That's pretty much true. Some of us though are waiting around for the
: flamers to finally get tired.

It's a little early to be positive, but it appears that you are
getting your wish. For the past 10 days, the flaming has died down
considerably. I now only see a handful of posts killed as my
newsreader opens this newsgroup. Two weeks ago, 50 or 60 posts would
be nuked each day, and almost nothing would be left behind.

: As to control freaks, I prefer that folks drive on the right side of the
: road here in the U.S. Some rules appear necessary to protect the majority
: of users.
:
:
: Where safety is involved, yes we need such rules. But a bunch of junk news
: postings are only an annoyance not a safety issue.

Moderation (censorship) replaces one problem with another. If some
people think that moderation is a good idea, then they should have the
common courtesy to let the newsgroup users make a choice between this
newsgroup and a new, moderated group. Only the users can decide which
option is best for them.

Attempting to "take over" the current group in order to force
moderation on its regular users is not only unlikely to work (too many
news servers will not respond to the control message), it is also
arrogant. The person proposing the moderation is not even a regular
here any longer. According to Google's profile, he has made a grand
total of four posts to amateur radio news groups for the entire year
of 2006!

*spit*