[[email protected]]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:06:48 -0500, BakedHam BakedHam wrote:

Dee Flint wrote:
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.

WHAT !?!
Dee not interested in sex..........
THAT is her main problem!!!!

well that was low blow althoughit may have more acucrately than anyone
will admit

"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

[[email protected][_2_]]

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:06:48 -0500, BakedHam BakedHam wrote:

Dee Flint wrote:
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.

WHAT !?!
Dee not interested in sex..........
THAT is her main problem!!!!

well that was low blow althoughit may have more acucrately than anyone
will admit

and i know all about low blows haeving admnistered a few myself in
bathrooms

[[email protected][_2_]]

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 28, 2:22?pm, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:06:48 -0500, BakedHam BakedHam wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
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.

WHAT !?!
Dee not interested in sex..........
THAT is her main problem!!!!

well that was low blow althoughit may have more acucrately than anyone
will admit

Who in their right mind would bang that pig? It's not so much her
interest it's that she can't get any!! EVEN HER DILDO GOES LIMP!!

spoken like a pig you are

--
"One useless dyslexic is a shame, 2 become a bisexual couple, and 3 or more
become the voices in Mark's head."

[BakedHam[_2_]]

wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:22?pm, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:06:48 -0500, BakedHam BakedHam wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
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.
WHAT !?!
Dee not interested in sex..........
THAT is her main problem!!!!
well that was low blow althoughit may have more acucrately than anyone
will admit

Who in their right mind would bang that pig? It's not so much her
NOT ME! NOT ME!
interest it's that she can't get any!! EVEN HER DILDO GOES LIMP!!

I wouldn't do that skank with mark's dick!

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

[Dee Flint]

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?


Same reason that I use the narrowest possible filter on the radio and that
is to select the signals that I am interested in and that's true for both
voice and CW.,

[Dee Flint]

"KH6HZ" wrote in message
...
"Larry" wrote:

The "no-coder" claim is a red herring. Something else is going on.

Many people who are part of the No-Code Agenda have problems posting
there. (You can identify a member of the No-Code Agenda by their rabid
hatred of anything that even remotely has to do with morse code or
operating CW). This is generally due to the fact that they are unable to
conduct themselves in an appropriate manner without resorting to
vulgarity, ad hominem attacks, etc. These folks are very much akin to the
rabid liberal Bush-haters, to draw an analogy which some folks may be able
to relate to.

73
kh6hz

Well one of the very vehment no-coders by the name of Len Anderson has
absolutely no trouble posting there. These days he shows up only
occasionally but does post from time to time. Perhaps he is busy enjoying
ham radio. I hope so.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:45:41 -0400, "Dee Flint"
wrote:


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



Same reason that I use the narrowest possible filter on the radio and that
is to select the signals that I am interested in and that's true for both
voice and CW.,

no it is because you are too lazy to sort for yourself

"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

[Dee Flint]

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.

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.

[[email protected][_2_]]

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:45:41 -0400, "Dee Flint"
wrote:


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



Same reason that I use the narrowest possible filter on the radio and that
is to select the signals that I am interested in and that's true for both
voice and CW.,

no it is because you are too lazy to sort for yourself an i not smart
enuogh to use one

"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

[[email protected]]

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


wrote in message
oups.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

I refuse to allow myself to be treated
that way.

obviously you are consenting to it Dee

"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